Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 21 Oct 2006 23:07 T Wake wrote: > "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message > news:mp3lj29e2fch9vi7q41flhjd983pcrh6de(a)4ax.com... >>>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. There is no physics without mathematics. "Pure math" isn't merely turning the crank and isn't generally available to young students. Beginning with high school algebra what you call examples are included, reasoning given below. > 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. This is more a teacher problem than a student one. Mathematics models just about everything, so attempting to teach it in isolation is usually a disservice to the student. The sooner the student understands various "formal discipline" correlations the more quickly they advance. > 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. The education degree should be eliminated. It is clear you don't have a reasonable grasp of mathematics and science let alone their interrelationships. <snip> further nonsense
From: T Wake on 22 Oct 2006 05:47 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:p2glj292d915vbpvtc9fg80nkglu3fu5rl(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 01:02:34 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"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. > > ID isn't bad science or good science. It's faith. Perhaps you don't > understand faith. I fully understand faith. Should I have wrote "Teaching Faith as Science is bad science?" I am not dismissing peoples choices or faiths. I am dismissing attempts to insert a particular faith into a science lesson. People who have real faith in their beliefs do not need to create a scientific "proof" or rationale for them. There are evolutionary biologists who are committed Christians. To redefine the meaning of science in order that _a_ faith can be taught in the science class strikes me as an act by people with little real belief in their faith and a need to "brainwash." >> >>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. > > Obvious. So why did you head down the road of using anecdotes to teach as a counter example? >> >>>> 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. > > Not obvious. Ok. USENET is full of people who have a limited understanding of several subjects and try to conflate them. Multiply this to the entire school population and you can see that without the basic grounding you could waste the entire lifetime of the universe heading down dead ends. Yes, people who come up with a great new idea which joins (for example) mathematics and art enjoy great success. But teaching art to a maths class of 10 year olds is not the way forward. Teach the subject. Nurture the student to learn the subject. Nurture the student to learn lots of subjects and then their imagination will join them. >>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. >> > > I'm not as dismissive about the imagination of kids, or people without > advanced degrees. I am not dismissing their imagination or capabilities, as I said there is the option to not teach any "subject" and have a world full of generalists. In your approach, the imagination is not the driving force for breakthroughs - they are being taught it.
From: jmfbahciv on 22 Oct 2006 07:38 In article <1161446216.247073.137760(a)i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> In article <1161181426.078024.31230(a)b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, >> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >[....] >> >Actually, I have been paying attention. The toughest job in heaven >> >these days is virgin wrangler. >> >> Other than react gleefully, which is the normal male reaction, > >It is perfectly natural for humans of either gender to laugh at an >obvious joke. As a result, the qualifier "male" was not needed. <snip> This is not all that funny when it is the carrot used to convince people to kill themselves in the form of a human bomb. >> I would assume >> that this would actully be hell for males. > >You seem to be suggesting that it wouldn't also be for females. There is not. Now, think about that in combination with the tactics that are currently working w.r.t. the West's news media. > >> I wish people >> would think a little bit more. > >So do I but I've learned to live with the fact that others simply can't >keep up with my thinking, humor and artistic skills. This is the curse >of being the smartest person in the world. You don't even approach the smartest. You certainly aren't any where near as smart as the person known as JMF in my login name. /BAH
From: T Wake on 22 Oct 2006 06:02 "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote in message news:1161478704.971665.99350(a)b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > T Wake wrote: >> "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >> news:fu7lj2t874oat4omh23ub487ft86nmnf4t(a)4ax.com... > [....] >> > 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? > > Things are sort of like this: > > Milky Way + Andromeda galaxy = Local Group > > Local Group + (M84 +M86) + some others = Virgo Cluster > > Each of these is contracting and all of that is going in the > Hydra-Centaurus direction. > Yes, thank you for that although I was looking for clarification in the context of the rest of the post. Redshift, from cosmological expansion, occurs outside large scale structures and as a result there is no major anomaly in the actions within the local group or the cluster. The oddity is the mass required to create this blueshift, given the lack of anything "visible." As for the "Great Attractor" being red shifted to the wall - it is no more red shifted than would be expected for its distance. Does this support a Big Bubble universe? Maybe. Off the top of my head I cant immediately fault it as a theory although the Big Bang is itself a misnomer and was never meant to imply a huge explosion at the t=0 event.
From: jmfbahciv on 22 Oct 2006 07:46
In article <54OdnR2_EJ87q6fYRVnysg(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ehd4o6$8qk_004(a)s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <tidcj2hc7r29unnup0qjddadothkt473q2(a)4ax.com>, >> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>On Wed, 18 Oct 06 11:51:42 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>>In article <e9ednZ8s0K3l2ajYRVnyuA(a)pipex.net>, >>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:4535424A.C08609A3(a)hotmail.com... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> T Wake wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > Certainly a lot of the details of Darwin's theories have been >>>>>>> > subject >>>>>>> > to >>>>>>> > question and modification over the years. What has not changed is >>>>>>> > the >>>>>>> > basic idea of evolution. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Very true. There is a conflict of terminology and if the people on >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> radio >>>>>>> show were talking about "Darwin's theories" specifically they are a >>>>>>> bit >>>>>>> behind the curve. Modern evolutionary theory has progressed beyond >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> specifics Darwin described. >>>>>> >>>>>> I've noticed that there is now a common tendency for those who reckon >> they >>>>>> know >>>>>> better to dismiss such things as 'just theories' as if that meant they >> had >>>>>> no >>>>>> vailidity ! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I love that phrase "just theories." It really makes me smile when some >>>>>creationist goes on about how "evolution is just a theory." >>>>> >>>>>Like Newtonian Gravity isn't "just" a theory. :-) >>>> >>>>Yes. It is just a theory. It is the human race's best >>>>guess at how nature and its laws work. >>> >>>It's a pretty good theory but ignores relativistic effects. It's >>>quantitatively precise in most practical situations, but not all >>>situations, so it is indeed flawed, and not a "best guess." >>> >> >> I'm not going to deal with this one. > >So why make any post? Why not just ignore it? It was a communication to the rational readers of this thread. If correcting John's idea of the Scientific Method was important, somebody else could do the writing. John's concept is slightly incorrect and requires a nitpik. /BAH |