Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Daniel Mandic on 21 Oct 2006 19:40 Eeyore wrote: > Yes we had classrooms on 3 floors. > > Graham We too. With nearly 3 classrooms on every side from the Stairs. I think Ground was a bit reduced to 3 or 4 classrooms... Best Regards, Daniel Mandic
From: Daniel Mandic on 21 Oct 2006 19:50 T Wake wrote: > If science teachers are teaching the Bible, they need to be fired. If > Religious Education teachers were teaching science, they should be > fired. Why this? I remember good the Religion Teacher in my eighth year of school. (4th class secondary modern school) He was/is a walking dictionary when going to Astronomic Science. He showed me at that time, in private time, astronomic calculations on Pocket SHARP Computer. And other theories he told me, are getting more and more processed, and extend my own visions.... :-) > If the fundamentalists are so poorly educated that they can not > understand the terminology used in science (i.e. what laws and > theories are apart from anything else) then they really do have NO > place in trying to determine what is taught. I don't think they would place a science over their Religion. Kind Regards, Daniel Mandic
From: T Wake on 21 Oct 2006 20:02 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:mp3lj29e2fch9vi7q41flhjd983pcrh6de(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 22:10:34 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>message >>news:69lkj218m8l6errb5fr0lnsb658moc7s8o(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 16:08:55 +0100, "T Wake" >>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>If science teachers are teaching the Bible, they need to be fired. If >>>>Religious Education teachers were teaching science, they should be >>>>fired. >>> >>> Right, keep all things in their rigid compartments where God intended >>> they stay. >> >>Interesting argument. You create the fallacy that supporting the >>separation >>of subjects into discrete categories for the education of children is >>actually supporting the doctrine of Christianity. Nicely done. >> >>I assume then, that you feel Biology teachers should spend their time >>teaching their student Spanish, > > If the teacher has a couple of Spanish-background kids in class, it > would be appropriate to mention the Spanish names for things, or > comment on critters that live in the kids' home countries. Nothing wrong with this, with the exception of a Biology teacher who starts to teach the kids the wrong Spanish grammar - which is more appropriate to the examples. Teaching ID as science is bad science. But it still falls foul of todays society. If the teacher is wasting time teaching a subject they shouldnt be it is wrong. Why should they be paid to teach (for example) biology if all that happens is the children come away knowing Spanish? My example was not about bringing out interesting anecdotes or using teaching techniques. >> while the Gym teacher covers Mathematics. > > Certainly the mention of mechanical advantage, momentum, friction, > things like that could be very useful in sports. Why select a light or > heavy bat? How does a curve ball work? What's the best way to throw a > football? That could create a lot more interest in physics than > sitting in a classroom grinding out equations. Very true and real world examples are great. I said mathematics not physics though as I suspected that would happen. All subjects need cross domain applications, this is as close to a "fact of life" as anything else I can think of. The reality though, and especially at pre-university level, is people need the basic groundings in a subject before they are opened up into cross domain work. There is a difference between showing how a subject can be applied in different ways and teaching a different subject. The examples I used were Science teachers _teaching_ religion and religious education teachers _teaching_ science. Not anecdotes. >>While we are at it, why have job titles at all. Why don't we all just be >>"do >>what you wanters." > > Why don't we all know and think about a little more than our > specialty? Must an English teacher be deliberately ignorant of > science? Must an engineering professor be uninterested in History? I am not asking for a lack of interest or ignorance. I dont know why you read that into my posts. >> >>Hmm. Sounds familiar. >> > > Depressingly so. Crossing disciplines can result in great revelations, > but a lot of people refuse to do it. No problem, I'll do it for you. In my experience people who refuse to cross disciplines tend to either know very little about their discipline and are frightened to look outside it or know too much about it and are frightened to look outside it. When it comes to teaching a subject, teach the subject. When it comes to encouraging post graduate students, encourage. When it comes to finding a real world application, find a real world application. Children only spend a finite time in education systems. Broad education can come afterwards when the grounding is known. Or do away with subjects all together and teach jack of all trades. Then those who specialise will do well, unlike today when (generally of course) those who can cross disciplines do well.
From: T Wake on 21 Oct 2006 20:03 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:fu7lj2t874oat4omh23ub487ft86nmnf4t(a)4ax.com... > >>My particular interest is understanding where ideas come from, and why >>some of them get squashed. When Townes was trying to get his first >>maser to work, his department head was convinced it was a waste of >>time. Townes broke the idea to a Nobel laureat who promptly told him >>that the maser couldn't work because it violated the rules of >>thermodynamics. He later reconsidered. > > --- > I haven't run into that mindset myself, much, except here, but maybe > it's because my heroes don't need to aggrandize their positions by > quashing ideas. > > Case in point, it struck me that the putative "Big Bang" could just > as easily have been a 'big bubble', where the bubble cavitated out > of a big block of, for want of a better description, Swiss cheese. > > Outgassing from the "infinite" cheese into our bubble at the moment > of cavitation and maybe a little bit after that would have put all > of the matter into our universe which was there at the beginning > into the space of the bubble. > > And maybe a little bit extra until the wall of the bubble got more > or less stable and started drawing the matter which had been exuded > into the space of the bubble back into the cheese. > > So far, we've found that we have a two-tiered gravitational system. > > We're currently being blue-shifted into our Great Attractor, while > the Great Attractor is being red shifted into the wall. > > Comments? When you say "we" do you mean Earth, the solar system, the milky way or the universe? Which direction is the Great Attractor in?
From: Daniel Mandic on 21 Oct 2006 20:13
Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > It is mostly a matter of finding some glib phrase that speaks to > pre-existing prejudice that wins hearts. > > Sadly. > > Jon Sorry to say this, but you are using a SS type writing-style. Best Regards, Daniel Mandic |