dude, your post was tooooo looonnngg. I understood most of your quibbles, and I can see where you found ambiguity in what I wrote, but I also think you could have tried a little harder to parse what I wrote more sympathetically.
Well, I wasn't trying to quibble or jump on you for minor inaccuracies etc. So no offence meant. I'm also not arguing 'religion vs science'.
But I do believe that science, ultimately, rests on faith. Do I mean faith as in God or religion? No. I mean faith, in that our base assumptions are unproveable, appearing to us as self-evident or else hidden in our unconsciousness and never held up to scrutiny.
I'm also trying to say that 'the act of believing' is a bad habit. I think that holding on to beliefs gives shape to our perceptions, distorting them. It leads to backwards statements like "The universe follows the laws of physics." Do I disagree? No, because I know what is meant. But I think the statement is revealing. After all, the universe doesn't follow any rules we devise! Quite the opposite. See what I'm getting at?
"What goes up must come down" is a knowable truth; science.
OK, I'm going to split some hairs here, to show you what I mean. For me to agree with the above, I would have to agree with some implicit assumptions. One assumption is that we are on earth. If we were out in space, what comes up would not come down. In fact, the very meanings of 'up' and 'down' would change. Instead of being relative to the pull of the earths gravity, the meanings would probably be relative to body positions. -Ie: "Move down, please." "Your down, or my down?"- Another assumption is that "what goes up" is not going up at escape velocity. In that context it would not come down either. So why am I making such a subtle distinction? Not to criticize your argument by any means. But to illustrate the contextual nature of knowledge and truth, and to show how our 'knowledge' rests on hidden and/or unconscious premises.
Here's a related discussion on a different thread that may also help clarify my last post:
The problem is, humans need squishy things like identities, and meanings, and purposes.
I don't think we need those things. But I think alot of people BELIEVE they need those things, so when they fail to get them, they feel bad. Belief is therefore a cause of suffering.
In this nihilistic age, unfortunately, we have to create our own identites and meanings and purposes.
Nihilism I don't know much about, but it seems to me that if 'belief' is itself a negative, then removal of 'belief' would be a positive.
Find something to believe in (hopefully it is something pleasant) and do some good. It'll probably make you feel better.
Even pleasant beliefs ultimately cause suffering, since circumstances change. Locked into a state of belief, the person is unable to change with circumstance.
Anyways, I hope you see why I find the subject so interesting.
No, when I see hoofprints I think hoofprints. Then I go looking around the area for animals with hoofs.
This is really a bad analogy since you've seen hoofprints before, and you have a pretty good idea how they got there. How else would you know what to start looking for?
The problem is, humans need squishy things like identities, and meanings, and purposes.
I don't think we need those things. But I think alot of people BELIEVE they need those things, so when they fail to get them, they feel bad. Belief is therefore a cause of suffering.
In this nihilistic age, unfortunately, we have to create our own identites and meanings and purposes.
Nihilism I don't know much about, but it seems to me that if 'belief' is itself a negative, then removal of 'belief' would be a positive.
Find something to believe in (hopefully it is something pleasant) and do some good. It'll probably make you feel better.
Even pleasant beliefs ultimately cause suffering, since circumstances change. Locked into a state of belief, the person is unable to change with circumstance.
Science changes its beliefs when presented with new evidence. Faith keeps trying to warp new evidence into the same old faith. If you can't understand this, have faith that faith and science are different, not the same.
Well, new evidence, even in science, is usually 'squeezed' into old theories until it's no longer possible to do so. Even then, the evidence is often left outside the theory, in limbo, with the assumption that it will be fit together at some later point. New ways of looking at things and new theories are not actively persued unless one can prove that the current theory is inadequate. Try to prove God doesn't exist to understand why this is a potential problem. (I'm generalizing of course. This is less true than it used to be...)
The big bang is a perfect example of this. When I express doubts about the big bang, I'm practically accused of heresy. Maybe it's just because people need to hold onto a 'definate' or a 'beginning'. Maybe the BB is a convenient 'spot' where both the religious and the scientific can live together. Perhaps infinity is too difficult to grasp. I don't know.
There is evidence around us that we had a Big Bang, so we think we had one.
Technically wrong. This is a backwards way of putting things I think (finding evidence to fit the theory instead of finding theories to fit the evidence), but I know what you meant.
We don't claim to know we had one, and we don't hold that we had one on faith, we simply say that the evidence we have seems to point to one and we are happy to change that belief with new evidence.
I'm curious how you can claim to not know something, yet at the same time allow yourself to turn something uncertain into a belief that has to be changed at some point. To keep a truly open mind, shouldn't we try to let go of beliefs altogether? In other words, is it wise to allow ourselves to slip into a state of belief, especially considering how many times we've gotten it wrong in the past?
We don't accuse those who weigh evidence differently of taking things on faith unless they seem to ignore all evidence.
Technically, all science rests on faith. Evidence consists of ideas inspired by experience. Since our experiences are both filtered and limited by our perceptions, we have no way of knowing how things truly are. But instead of paying homage to the Unknown and the Unknowable, instead of recognizing our limitations and making that knowledge implicit in our everyday thinking, we make broad assertions and cling to new beliefs that appear to fit our ever changing viewpoints.
Yes, science "works" better than religion. But we should be aware of the limitations.
I agree his policy sounds a little radical, but remember the bill will go through committees and both houses before it is final. Unless he takes the Clinton route and circumvents the process by signing executive orders, then the bill will be modified from his origional plan. Sort of an "open source" way of writing laws with many eyes looking it over and changing the radical parts.
I don't think his plan is radical, but I do think it's based on simplistic ideas about education and learning. Ironically, because of its simplicity, it may well pass as is, may even be considered 'elegant'. That would be a sad day for quality education.
I look at Bush as the only one who will even try to fix the messed up educational system in the country, since Gore is too much in the pockets of the teacher's unions to make and kind of substancial change. He will just throw more of my money around to make the class size lower. This is all well and good, but lower class size does not a good class make:) It takes more than that.
I agree that Bush appears to be trying to fix the problem. But I would say that his ideas are simplistic and that he is incompetent. When someone tries to fix a process they know next to nothing about, when they don't even try to understand the underlying problems, you're better off not doing anything at all! Imagine asking a mechanic to fix your computer. "Hey, I can fix cars, and they're bigger than this little thing. No problem!" Chances are he'll fix it real good.
As far as Gore goes, I don't think his position is much better than Bush's. I think they are both going to make education worse.
Gores plan is a little better though. Class size is an issue, so that may help. But only because teachers aren't allowed the flexibility to change their style to suit larger classes. Too many controls, to much 'accountability' where accountability makes no sense. As a result they can't teach effectively.
For example, in a large classroom, teaching might be more effective if the teacher were free to take a fully collaborative approach. But that is hard to do if you have a strict curriculum to follow, strict 'standards' you have to meet etc. These 'high standards' hamstring the only person who knows what to do in the situation! 'High Standards' can produce low quality.
One more point regarding tests. Suppose you and I were to be tested on a subject. Out of the ten major points to remember, we both learned five of them, you learned the even points, and I learned the odd points. Now suppose the test, not being able to cover all ten points, tests us on every second point instead. Results: FP 100%, JN 0%. Even though we knew the same amount of information going in.
Tests should be used with great caution and great understanding.
I have not heard of a single candidate expressing anything more than a superficial stance on education. Doesn't education deserve an in depth analysis? Sadly, due to a poor education system, an in depth analysis from citizens is alot to ask for. Oh, a feedback loop! See how it perpetuates itself?
Not at all. What is impossible with giving states automony with how they choose to teach, but holding them accountable for the results? That sounds reasonable to me.
What if I told you to write a program, I don't care what language you write it in, as long as it produced the proper results?
Good analogy. I'm no programmer, but even I can see how the results that you choose for me to accomplish would significantly influence my choice of language, style, priorities etc. How could it not?
For you to then claim that you have given me autonomy with respect to programming is ridiculous. The tools must suit the task. If you choose my task, then you are significantly influencing my choice of tools.
But education is different. There is no clear 'result', because a childs learning cannot be simplistically quantified. High test scores alone do not reflect high quality. They can just as easily reflect poor quality. It all depends on the test, the methods used to teach the students, etc.
To hinge a childs educational standing and a teachers paycheck on the basis of a single test is unwise and irresponsible.
' "Took the inititive in the creation of the internet" is not that far off from "invented the internet". '
Right. How about "I took the initiative in the creation of the freeway." VS "I invented the freeway." Come on. It's WAY FAR OFF. It not only misrepresents Gores statement, it also makes him look like a lying fool.
As far as 'innaccurate paraphrasing' goes, why would anyone paraphrase at all in this case? For the sake of brevity? Ha.
"Gore claims to have taken the initiative on the creation of the internet."
"Gore claim to have invented the internet."
Not all that much space saved. But the second one sure makes Gore sound like a fool.
It seems clear to me that this was a deliberate distortion. To deliberately mislead the public in an effort to influence their vote IS VERY SERIOUS!
So far, I've heard more lies from the lips of G.W. Bush. Worse, they are not small anecdotal errors, they're blatant distortions and outright lies regarding major policy issues. Nevermind the baseless smearing and evasiveness.
But I think you were referring to Gore as the "bender of truth". What specific bends are you referring to? Please tell me so I can check them out for myself. Because of the lopsided press coverage of the candidates factual errors, I'm beginning to suspect that corporate media is complicitly involved in a disinformation campaign. Please put my fears to rest! I want to believe that "Gore the Liar" has at least some substance to it!
Bush talks about giving a state more autonomy with regard to education, then talks about holding them "accountable" in the same breath. Doesn't this strike anyone as a contradiction?
"Great. So if the government were to pass a law saying "Jim Nolan's house is now forfeit", you wouldn't consider that to be theft?"
No, it wouldn't be considered theft. But I could make an argument as to why it SHOULD be considered theft.
..."Trusting the law to make determinations of right and wrong is like trusting Charles Manson to be a sane and lucid human being. It's not just wrong, it's entirely opposed to history."
I don't trust law to determine what is right and wrong. I think we determine what is right and wrong, then try to draft a law to address the problem.
I use the law to define "theft". So perhaps my legal definition should change to include taxation. I don't think so. However, the argument wasn't that taxation is wrong and should be considered theft, it was that taxation IS theft. Reasoning along those lines, imprisonment is kidnapping.
"Trusting the law to provide a moral framework, so that we can say "theft is the unlawful taking of property", is foolish. Immoral laws are passed all the time."
I thought we were talking policy. Where did I say anything about "trusting the law to provide a moral framework"? Reading is not enough. You should read carefully.
"Remember that, at one point, you could just as easily say "voting rights are held by all those Americans permitted by law to vote", and exclude women, the non-landed, minorities, some religious sects, etc. "
Voting rights ARE held by all those Americans permitted by law to vote. Mine didn't kick in till I was considered eligable BY LAW. Sheesh.
"What makes taxation legal is that the right of the people to enjoy certain government services outweighs my right as an individual to not have 40% of my paycheck taken away. This is a balancing act of liberties.
Taxation is legal, and oftentimes taxation is right.
That doesn't mean it's not theft."
My definition of theft is different: theft occurs when someone takes something from someone else 'unlawfully'. If it's legal, it's not theft. So lets leave the word 'thief' out of the discussion. Murder is illegal, capital punishment is legal. Kidnapping is illigal, imprisonment is legal. I could go on.
"Those are separate ideas. In case 1 the federal government is mandating how everyone should guarantee subsistence aids. If you as a citizen wish to perform the same service, you do so through private charities or handing out dollars on the street corner."
How about if I use my power as a citizen to vote in a government to achieve the same goals? What's wrong with that? Give me some reasons for your position. Please.
Not to me. Unfortunately Gore's plan isn't much better.
Check out the Bush record on education in Texas, it's the least you could do. Remember, test scores alone are not an accurate measure of quality in education. A sole reliance on test scores as evidence should raise eyebrows.
"1. The assumption that government, specifically the Federal government, is the proper vehicle for guaranteeing subsistence needs."
Please explain what's wrong with this assumption. Why isn't it the proper vehicle? Why is it wrong to use my power as a citizen to guarantee subsistence needs?
"2. The assumption that all income belongs to the government, to dispose of wherever it can find a "need"; the desires of the people who made that income have no special status."
I think there is a questionable assumption implicit in your statement: that people earn their fortunes in a vacum. To earn money, you must participate in a society and you have to use laws and infrastructure, both created collaboratively. What's wrong with feeding some money back into the system that helped the rich get rich? Or are you suggesting that the decision making process shouldn't be collaborative when it comes to taxes?
I would use money and influence to change policy, but all I have is one measly vote.
"There is no responsibility for a government to help it's citizens financially. It is the government's responsibility to protect them from enemies, foriegn and domestic. It's their responsibility to make the laws fair so that all citizens are EQUAL before the law. Under no circumstances is it the government's responsibility to make sure they eat right, or have heat in their homes. That's charity."
I'm afraid government doesn't conform to your narrow view of responsibility. WE set the governments priorities, not some ideological rule-book.
"And it's not a tax break, it's a tax reduction. Maybe they don't need it, but they sure as hell deserve it.
Deserve. I deserve alot of things. Maybe if I had the money/power to influence policy, I could get what I deserve too! But all I have is one measly vote...
There has been lots of talk about 'accountability' with regard to education. Do you think 'accountability' is a step in the right direction? Why or why not? If so, who would you hold accountable and what would you hold them accountable for?
There is also lots of talk about test scores. Do you think test scores are the best way to measure the quality of a childs education? What other indicators would you rely on?
That's crap. This is a clear example of a bunch of psycho babbles trying to turn their erroneous opinions into fact by signing a petition. PATHETIC! Their very NEED for such a thing suggests a thing or two.
"We need a more intelligent, better-educated populace!"
I agree, in part...
The REAL problem is HOW we educate. Do we model a system of top down coercion, where the teacher plays the role of an authority figure, more interested in compliance training than learning?
Do we focus kids on competition by making it implicit in all the games they play and everything they do?
Or do we try a more democratic approach to education where genuine collaboration is at least as important as competition?
Competition means keeping secrets. Kids want to win, so they don't communicate. See how this breaks down collaborative learning? See how this isolates?
Same thing with authority. Should we coerce children into following rules, or should we show them the role they play in a democracy so that they develop a vested interest in following the rules that they helped create? We should teach kids from day one how to govern as a citizen in a democracy.
Why isn't critical thinking on the curriculum? Well, it would be disasterous. They'd see right through the stupid things they are being asked to do everyday in school. I don't know about you, but I would never deliberately put myself into a situation like I experienced in school. And I sure as hell wouldn't put a child through that experience!
RE Higher standards, we should ask for higher standards in terms of quality, not test scores. They are two very different things. Asking for higher test scores alone is asking for WORSE SCHOOLS! Don't believe me? We should all learn from Texas:
"The fundamental problem is that people are causing changes much faster than processes like geology and evolution can react."
Just to clarify (I think we agree here), life will continue to evolve, but it appears that this stage of evolution entails a mass extinction. Perhaps even our own.
This last bit of your post made me wonder: Assuming we survive our follies, how will life evolve 'around us' afterwards? In other words, what traits might our behaviours be encouraging from the species that surround us?
By changing the environment so dramatically, might we be encouraging the ability to adapt quickly?
Interesting concept. Maybe we have an unconscious desire to put enourmous pressure on the rest of the biosphere in order to force it to adapt to the US... oops, I mean... to us.
I think there is a real problem here: Our social progress is not keeping pace with our technological and intellectual progress.
You guys know this already. You call it 'shitty management'. Well, guess what? All management is shitty.
So, what is 'good management'? Well, it's not called 'management'. It's called 'collaboration'. You see, collaboration is something that you actively do, while management is something that is done to you. I hope you recognize the difference, and the importance of the distinction. After all, what is our democracy if not a collaboration?
Why is our education system based on a model of top-down coercion? Why do our schools emphasize rote-momorization and behavioural compliance? Why don't they emphasize conceptualization, raw experience and collaboration? A large majority of research supports the second approach, yet most of our schools fail to reflect this research.
Have you ever known a guy who after being promoted to manager, starts acting like a prick? That's because he's trying to manage you. He's wearing his 'teachers hat', as many teachers like to call their presumption of authority.
Good teaching is collaborative, good managing is collaborative, and good government is collaborative (ie democracy). But what if our government, in charge of education, decides not to teach children how to collaborate? Instead they focus children on competition. Doesn't intellectual competition encourage people to horde the 'secrets of their success', breaking down communication, an essential element of collaboration? Does this approach nurture a childs ability to govern effectively as a citizen in a democracy? Does he become more dependent upon his elected leaders as a result of this ommission?
Do you ever wonder where apathy comes from?
The prospect of extreme technological power scares people: like the prospect of a child playing with a machine-gun in a schoolyard.
Lets solve our social problems. It takes only one thing: collaboration. Collaboration IS the solution. Just make sure it's REAL collaboration:
Collaborators don't reward or punish each other.
Collaborators don't win or lose.
Collaborators don't organize themselves hierarchically.
Collaborators don't impose ideas or rules on people.
You heard me. You're just a slightly more up to date version of the folks who speak out against ATM machines, electro-magnetic radiation from home appliances, and the Evil Internet, yet accept technologies like refrigeration and internal combustion engines, because we've had that technology "forever".
Right. And the reason Picard resisted the Borg is because he's a Luddite and is resisting progress.
Don't hamper progress by thinking about what you are doing! Don't start asking impertinent questions! Just accept and conform.
Or else risk being labled a Luddite. People who express NEW ideas and concerns must be branded so they can be easily identified. Otherwise, they might influence people. Worse, they might influence the whole intellectual landscape! I guess that makes you a "thought-Luddite", since you are trying to hamper intellectual progress.
Intellectual progress must not interfere with technological progress! It's Luddite VS Luddite in a 'winner takes all' showdown! Lets get ready to rumble!
We should look to the system that makes us vulnerable to mass marketing in the first place.
A system that punishes and rewards us for learning.
We are screwing with a natural and valuable process: learning. It has been shown in study after study that behaviorism deadens learning, but our schools don't listen! Either do we!
Punishing and rewarding for learning causes apathy. Behaviorism is the antithesis of quality teaching.
Democracy can't function if the citizens are CONDITIONED into APATHY.
The mystic likes the lack of responsibility implied in being part of "something bigger".
I would think that a mystics source of resposibility would be found in the knowledge that we are part of something that is "bigger".
Some things are difficult to recognize. But that doesn't mean they aren't there.
James.
I (also) was surprised to see Zen grouped with "neo-paganism, Discordianism" and in one post "occultism".
I like to watch how people group or classify things they don't understand.
I'm no hacker, but I am learning (slowly) to program, and I have been noticing interesting connections between Zen and programming. For example, there is some difficulty in teaching a computer to recognize things. This is something we do easily and naturally, so I was reminded: recognizing things is something we DO. We recognize things. It's an action on our part. What if we were to practice NOT recognizing things for a while? To NOT impose meanings, words, and associations onto a recognized 'thing', but just to experience it as it is? Acceptance. For me, this is part of Zen.
Zen has taught me that thinking is a tool. But it is a tool that is often abused. Just because you have a hammer doesn't mean you should go around banging everything you see. You should put it down. Pick it up when you need it, then put it back down. Is it hard to let go of? Then you should practice.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I wasn't trying to quibble or jump on you for minor inaccuracies etc. So no offence meant. I'm also not arguing 'religion vs science'.
But I do believe that science, ultimately, rests on faith. Do I mean faith as in God or religion? No. I mean faith, in that our base assumptions are unproveable, appearing to us as self-evident or else hidden in our unconsciousness and never held up to scrutiny.
I'm also trying to say that 'the act of believing' is a bad habit. I think that holding on to beliefs gives shape to our perceptions, distorting them. It leads to backwards statements like "The universe follows the laws of physics." Do I disagree? No, because I know what is meant. But I think the statement is revealing. After all, the universe doesn't follow any rules we devise! Quite the opposite. See what I'm getting at?
"What goes up must come down" is a knowable truth; science.
OK, I'm going to split some hairs here, to show you what I mean. For me to agree with the above, I would have to agree with some implicit assumptions. One assumption is that we are on earth. If we were out in space, what comes up would not come down. In fact, the very meanings of 'up' and 'down' would change. Instead of being relative to the pull of the earths gravity, the meanings would probably be relative to body positions. -Ie: "Move down, please." "Your down, or my down?"- Another assumption is that "what goes up" is not going up at escape velocity. In that context it would not come down either. So why am I making such a subtle distinction? Not to criticize your argument by any means. But to illustrate the contextual nature of knowledge and truth, and to show how our 'knowledge' rests on hidden and/or unconscious premises.
Here's a related discussion on a different thread that may also help clarify my last post:
Anyways, I hope you see why I find the subject so interesting.
James.
No, when I see hoofprints I think hoofprints. Then I go looking around the area for animals with hoofs.
This is really a bad analogy since you've seen hoofprints before, and you have a pretty good idea how they got there. How else would you know what to start looking for?
I don't think we need those things. But I think alot of people BELIEVE they need those things, so when they fail to get them, they feel bad. Belief is therefore a cause of suffering.
In this nihilistic age, unfortunately, we have to create our own identites and meanings and purposes.
Nihilism I don't know much about, but it seems to me that if 'belief' is itself a negative, then removal of 'belief' would be a positive.
Find something to believe in (hopefully it is something pleasant) and do some good. It'll probably make you feel better.
Even pleasant beliefs ultimately cause suffering, since circumstances change. Locked into a state of belief, the person is unable to change with circumstance.
James.
Well, new evidence, even in science, is usually 'squeezed' into old theories until it's no longer possible to do so. Even then, the evidence is often left outside the theory, in limbo, with the assumption that it will be fit together at some later point. New ways of looking at things and new theories are not actively persued unless one can prove that the current theory is inadequate. Try to prove God doesn't exist to understand why this is a potential problem. (I'm generalizing of course. This is less true than it used to be...)
The big bang is a perfect example of this. When I express doubts about the big bang, I'm practically accused of heresy. Maybe it's just because people need to hold onto a 'definate' or a 'beginning'. Maybe the BB is a convenient 'spot' where both the religious and the scientific can live together. Perhaps infinity is too difficult to grasp. I don't know.
There is evidence around us that we had a Big Bang, so we think we had one.
Technically wrong. This is a backwards way of putting things I think (finding evidence to fit the theory instead of finding theories to fit the evidence), but I know what you meant.
We don't claim to know we had one, and we don't hold that we had one on faith, we simply say that the evidence we have seems to point to one and we are happy to change that belief with new evidence.
I'm curious how you can claim to not know something, yet at the same time allow yourself to turn something uncertain into a belief that has to be changed at some point. To keep a truly open mind, shouldn't we try to let go of beliefs altogether? In other words, is it wise to allow ourselves to slip into a state of belief, especially considering how many times we've gotten it wrong in the past?
We don't accuse those who weigh evidence differently of taking things on faith unless they seem to ignore all evidence.
Technically, all science rests on faith. Evidence consists of ideas inspired by experience. Since our experiences are both filtered and limited by our perceptions, we have no way of knowing how things truly are. But instead of paying homage to the Unknown and the Unknowable, instead of recognizing our limitations and making that knowledge implicit in our everyday thinking, we make broad assertions and cling to new beliefs that appear to fit our ever changing viewpoints.
Yes, science "works" better than religion. But we should be aware of the limitations.
James.
I agree his policy sounds a little radical, but remember the bill will go through committees and both houses before it is final. Unless he takes the Clinton route and circumvents the process by signing executive orders, then the bill will be modified from his origional plan. Sort of an "open source" way of writing laws with many eyes looking it over and changing the radical parts.
I don't think his plan is radical, but I do think it's based on simplistic ideas about education and learning. Ironically, because of its simplicity, it may well pass as is, may even be considered 'elegant'. That would be a sad day for quality education.
I look at Bush as the only one who will even try to fix the messed up educational system in the country, since Gore is too much in the pockets of the teacher's unions to make and kind of substancial change. He will just throw more of my money around to make the class size lower. This is all well and good, but lower class size does not a good class make :) It takes more than that.
I agree that Bush appears to be trying to fix the problem. But I would say that his ideas are simplistic and that he is incompetent. When someone tries to fix a process they know next to nothing about, when they don't even try to understand the underlying problems, you're better off not doing anything at all! Imagine asking a mechanic to fix your computer. "Hey, I can fix cars, and they're bigger than this little thing. No problem!" Chances are he'll fix it real good.
As far as Gore goes, I don't think his position is much better than Bush's. I think they are both going to make education worse.
Gores plan is a little better though. Class size is an issue, so that may help. But only because teachers aren't allowed the flexibility to change their style to suit larger classes. Too many controls, to much 'accountability' where accountability makes no sense. As a result they can't teach effectively.
For example, in a large classroom, teaching might be more effective if the teacher were free to take a fully collaborative approach. But that is hard to do if you have a strict curriculum to follow, strict 'standards' you have to meet etc. These 'high standards' hamstring the only person who knows what to do in the situation! 'High Standards' can produce low quality.
One more point regarding tests. Suppose you and I were to be tested on a subject. Out of the ten major points to remember, we both learned five of them, you learned the even points, and I learned the odd points. Now suppose the test, not being able to cover all ten points, tests us on every second point instead. Results: FP 100%, JN 0%. Even though we knew the same amount of information going in.
Tests should be used with great caution and great understanding.
I have not heard of a single candidate expressing anything more than a superficial stance on education. Doesn't education deserve an in depth analysis? Sadly, due to a poor education system, an in depth analysis from citizens is alot to ask for. Oh, a feedback loop! See how it perpetuates itself?
James.
Not at all. What is impossible with giving states automony with how they choose to teach, but holding them accountable for the results? That sounds reasonable to me.
What if I told you to write a program, I don't care what language you write it in, as long as it produced the proper results?
Good analogy. I'm no programmer, but even I can see how the results that you choose for me to accomplish would significantly influence my choice of language, style, priorities etc. How could it not?
For you to then claim that you have given me autonomy with respect to programming is ridiculous. The tools must suit the task. If you choose my task, then you are significantly influencing my choice of tools.
But education is different. There is no clear 'result', because a childs learning cannot be simplistically quantified. High test scores alone do not reflect high quality. They can just as easily reflect poor quality. It all depends on the test, the methods used to teach the students, etc.
To hinge a childs educational standing and a teachers paycheck on the basis of a single test is unwise and irresponsible.
Here are some references for you.
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n41/
http://www.law.harvard.edu/groups/civilrights/co nferences/testing98/dra fts/mcneil _valen zuela.html
' "Took the inititive in the creation of the internet" is not that far off from "invented the internet". '
Right. How about "I took the initiative in the creation of the freeway." VS "I invented the freeway." Come on. It's WAY FAR OFF. It not only misrepresents Gores statement, it also makes him look like a lying fool.
As far as 'innaccurate paraphrasing' goes, why would anyone paraphrase at all in this case? For the sake of brevity? Ha.
"Gore claims to have taken the initiative on the creation of the internet."
"Gore claim to have invented the internet."
Not all that much space saved. But the second one sure makes Gore sound like a fool.
It seems clear to me that this was a deliberate distortion. To deliberately mislead the public in an effort to influence their vote IS VERY SERIOUS!
The one thing I can't stand is a liar.
So far, I've heard more lies from the lips of G.W. Bush. Worse, they are not small anecdotal errors, they're blatant distortions and outright lies regarding major policy issues. Nevermind the baseless smearing and evasiveness.
But I think you were referring to Gore as the "bender of truth". What specific bends are you referring to? Please tell me so I can check them out for myself. Because of the lopsided press coverage of the candidates factual errors, I'm beginning to suspect that corporate media is complicitly involved in a disinformation campaign. Please put my fears to rest! I want to believe that "Gore the Liar" has at least some substance to it!
Thanks.
Bush talks about giving a state more autonomy with regard to education, then talks about holding them "accountable" in the same breath. Doesn't this strike anyone as a contradiction?
"Great. So if the government were to pass a law saying "Jim Nolan's house is now forfeit", you wouldn't consider that to be theft?"
No, it wouldn't be considered theft. But I could make an argument as to why it SHOULD be considered theft.
I don't trust law to determine what is right and wrong. I think we determine what is right and wrong, then try to draft a law to address the problem.
I use the law to define "theft". So perhaps my legal definition should change to include taxation. I don't think so. However, the argument wasn't that taxation is wrong and should be considered theft, it was that taxation IS theft. Reasoning along those lines, imprisonment is kidnapping.
"Trusting the law to provide a moral framework, so that we can say "theft is the unlawful taking of property", is foolish. Immoral laws are passed all the time."
I thought we were talking policy. Where did I say anything about "trusting the law to provide a moral framework"? Reading is not enough. You should read carefully.
"Remember that, at one point, you could just as easily say "voting rights are held by all those Americans permitted by law to vote", and exclude women, the non-landed, minorities, some religious sects, etc. "
Voting rights ARE held by all those Americans permitted by law to vote. Mine didn't kick in till I was considered eligable BY LAW. Sheesh.
"What makes taxation legal is that the right of the people to enjoy certain government services outweighs my right as an individual to not have 40% of my paycheck taken away. This is a balancing act of liberties.
Taxation is legal, and oftentimes taxation is right.
That doesn't mean it's not theft."
My definition of theft is different: theft occurs when someone takes something from someone else 'unlawfully'. If it's legal, it's not theft. So lets leave the word 'thief' out of the discussion. Murder is illegal, capital punishment is legal. Kidnapping is illigal, imprisonment is legal. I could go on.
"Those are separate ideas. In case 1 the federal government is mandating how everyone should guarantee subsistence aids. If you as a citizen wish to perform the same service, you do so through private charities or handing out dollars on the street corner."
How about if I use my power as a citizen to vote in a government to achieve the same goals? What's wrong with that? Give me some reasons for your position. Please.
"Ah, so stealing my wealth to supply charity for the needy "promotes the general welfare"? I'd be interested to learn precisely how."
I'm curious as to why you suggest taxation is theft. Is all taxation theft, or just the taxation you don't like?
"His plan for education seems sound."
o nferences/testing98/drafts/mcneil_valenzue la.html
Not to me. Unfortunately Gore's plan isn't much better.
Check out the Bush record on education in Texas, it's the least you could do. Remember, test scores alone are not an accurate measure of quality in education. A sole reliance on test scores as evidence should raise eyebrows.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/groups/civilrights/c
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n41/
"1. The assumption that government, specifically the Federal government, is the proper vehicle for guaranteeing subsistence needs."
Please explain what's wrong with this assumption. Why isn't it the proper vehicle? Why is it wrong to use my power as a citizen to guarantee subsistence needs?
"2. The assumption that all income belongs to the government, to dispose of wherever it can find a "need"; the desires of the people who made that income have no special status."
I think there is a questionable assumption implicit in your statement: that people earn their fortunes in a vacum. To earn money, you must participate in a society and you have to use laws and infrastructure, both created collaboratively. What's wrong with feeding some money back into the system that helped the rich get rich? Or are you suggesting that the decision making process shouldn't be collaborative when it comes to taxes?
I would use money and influence to change policy, but all I have is one measly vote.
"There is no responsibility for a government to help it's citizens financially. It is the government's responsibility to protect them from enemies, foriegn and domestic. It's their responsibility to make the laws fair so that all citizens are EQUAL before the law. Under no circumstances is it the government's responsibility to make sure they eat right, or have heat in their homes. That's charity."
I'm afraid government doesn't conform to your narrow view of responsibility. WE set the governments priorities, not some ideological rule-book.
"And it's not a tax break, it's a tax reduction. Maybe they don't need it, but they sure as hell deserve it.
Deserve. I deserve alot of things. Maybe if I had the money/power to influence policy, I could get what I deserve too! But all I have is one measly vote...
There has been lots of talk about 'accountability' with regard to education. Do you think 'accountability' is a step in the right direction? Why or why not? If so, who would you hold accountable and what would you hold them accountable for?
There is also lots of talk about test scores. Do you think test scores are the best way to measure the quality of a childs education? What other indicators would you rely on?
RE Wall St. Article...
That's crap. This is a clear example of a bunch of psycho babbles trying to turn their erroneous opinions into fact by signing a petition. PATHETIC! Their very NEED for such a thing suggests a thing or two.
James.
"We need a more intelligent, better-educated populace!"
o nferences/testing98/drafts/mcneil_valenzue la.html
I agree, in part...
The REAL problem is HOW we educate. Do we model a system of top down coercion, where the teacher plays the role of an authority figure, more interested in compliance training than learning?
Do we focus kids on competition by making it implicit in all the games they play and everything they do?
Or do we try a more democratic approach to education where genuine collaboration is at least as important as competition?
Competition means keeping secrets. Kids want to win, so they don't communicate. See how this breaks down collaborative learning? See how this isolates?
Same thing with authority. Should we coerce children into following rules, or should we show them the role they play in a democracy so that they develop a vested interest in following the rules that they helped create? We should teach kids from day one how to govern as a citizen in a democracy.
Why isn't critical thinking on the curriculum? Well, it would be disasterous. They'd see right through the stupid things they are being asked to do everyday in school. I don't know about you, but I would never deliberately put myself into a situation like I experienced in school. And I sure as hell wouldn't put a child through that experience!
RE Higher standards, we should ask for higher standards in terms of quality, not test scores. They are two very different things. Asking for higher test scores alone is asking for WORSE SCHOOLS! Don't believe me? We should all learn from Texas:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/groups/civilrights/c
and
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n41/
So in closing, you can spend all the money you want. But it won't make a difference unless you spend it wisely.
James.
"The fundamental problem is that people are causing changes much faster than processes like geology and evolution can react."
Just to clarify (I think we agree here), life will continue to evolve, but it appears that this stage of evolution entails a mass extinction. Perhaps even our own.
This last bit of your post made me wonder: Assuming we survive our follies, how will life evolve 'around us' afterwards? In other words, what traits might our behaviours be encouraging from the species that surround us?
By changing the environment so dramatically, might we be encouraging the ability to adapt quickly?
Interesting concept. Maybe we have an unconscious desire to put enourmous pressure on the rest of the biosphere in order to force it to adapt to the US... oops, I mean... to us.
James.
I think there is a real problem here: Our social progress is not keeping pace with our technological and intellectual progress.
You guys know this already. You call it 'shitty management'. Well, guess what? All management is shitty.
So, what is 'good management'? Well, it's not called 'management'. It's called 'collaboration'. You see, collaboration is something that you actively do, while management is something that is done to you. I hope you recognize the difference, and the importance of the distinction. After all, what is our democracy if not a collaboration?
Why is our education system based on a model of top-down coercion? Why do our schools emphasize rote-momorization and behavioural compliance? Why don't they emphasize conceptualization, raw experience and collaboration? A large majority of research supports the second approach, yet most of our schools fail to reflect this research.
Have you ever known a guy who after being promoted to manager, starts acting like a prick? That's because he's trying to manage you. He's wearing his 'teachers hat', as many teachers like to call their presumption of authority.
Good teaching is collaborative, good managing is collaborative, and good government is collaborative (ie democracy). But what if our government, in charge of education, decides not to teach children how to collaborate? Instead they focus children on competition. Doesn't intellectual competition encourage people to horde the 'secrets of their success', breaking down communication, an essential element of collaboration? Does this approach nurture a childs ability to govern effectively as a citizen in a democracy? Does he become more dependent upon his elected leaders as a result of this ommission?
Do you ever wonder where apathy comes from?
The prospect of extreme technological power scares people: like the prospect of a child playing with a machine-gun in a schoolyard.
Lets solve our social problems. It takes only one thing: collaboration. Collaboration IS the solution. Just make sure it's REAL collaboration:
Collaborators don't reward or punish each other.
Collaborators don't win or lose.
Collaborators don't organize themselves hierarchically.
Collaborators don't impose ideas or rules on people.
Collaborators choose to collaborate.
James.
Luddite.
You heard me. You're just a slightly more up to date version of the folks who speak out against ATM machines, electro-magnetic radiation from home appliances, and the Evil Internet, yet accept technologies like refrigeration and internal combustion engines, because we've had that technology "forever".
Right. And the reason Picard resisted the Borg is because he's a Luddite and is resisting progress.
Don't hamper progress by thinking about what you are doing! Don't start asking impertinent questions! Just accept and conform.
Or else risk being labled a Luddite. People who express NEW ideas and concerns must be branded so they can be easily identified. Otherwise, they might influence people. Worse, they might influence the whole intellectual landscape! I guess that makes you a "thought-Luddite", since you are trying to hamper intellectual progress.
Intellectual progress must not interfere with technological progress! It's Luddite VS Luddite in a 'winner takes all' showdown! Lets get ready to rumble!
Name-calling is fun!
James.
WE NEED TO FIGURE THIS OUT FAST.
We should look to the system that makes us vulnerable to mass marketing in the first place.
A system that punishes and rewards us for learning.
We are screwing with a natural and valuable process: learning. It has been shown in study after study that behaviorism deadens learning, but our schools don't listen! Either do we!
Punishing and rewarding for learning causes apathy. Behaviorism is the antithesis of quality teaching.
Democracy can't function if the citizens are CONDITIONED into APATHY.
James.
The mystic likes the lack of responsibility implied in being part of "something bigger". I would think that a mystics source of resposibility would be found in the knowledge that we are part of something that is "bigger". Some things are difficult to recognize. But that doesn't mean they aren't there. James.
Zen is not mystical. It only appears to be.
I (also) was surprised to see Zen grouped with "neo-paganism, Discordianism" and in one post "occultism".
I like to watch how people group or classify things they don't understand.
I'm no hacker, but I am learning (slowly) to program, and I have been noticing interesting connections between Zen and programming. For example, there is some difficulty in teaching a computer to recognize things. This is something we do easily and naturally, so I was reminded: recognizing things is something we DO. We recognize things. It's an action on our part. What if we were to practice NOT recognizing things for a while? To NOT impose meanings, words, and associations onto a recognized 'thing', but just to experience it as it is? Acceptance. For me, this is part of Zen.
Zen has taught me that thinking is a tool. But it is a tool that is often abused. Just because you have a hammer doesn't mean you should go around banging everything you see. You should put it down. Pick it up when you need it, then put it back down. Is it hard to let go of? Then you should practice.
James.