Post New

A bill in the Montana Legislature seeking to regulate science curriculum in public schools got its first hearing Monday. The legislation's sponsor says by banning scientific theories, the policy aims to prevent kids from being taught things that aren't true.

"If we operate on the assumption that a theory is fact, unfortunately, it leads us to asking questions that may be potentially based on false assumptions," Emrich said.


https://www.mtpr.org/montana-news/2023-02-07/bill-...

Oh lordy lordy lordy....

In Emrich, MTG has serious competition for the 2023 "Scientifically iggerant And Proud of It" Stupid Awards.

The legislation's sponsor says by banning scientific theories, the policy aims to prevent kids from being taught things that aren't true.

"If we operate on the assumption that a theory is fact, unfortunately, it leads us to asking questions that may be potentially based on false assumptions," Emrich said.

The fact that this is even being considered as potentially legitimate leaves me beyond words. How can someone not recognize that this would outlaw in schools the kind of thinking that is essential to the evolution of knowledge and the process of discovering new facts. Back to the Dark Ages!

=sheila

The fact that this is even being considered as potentially legitimate leaves me beyond words. How can someone not recognize that this would outlaw in schools the kind of thinking that is essential to the evolution of knowledge

---------------

I know. If schools can't teach settled science like women can have penises and men can have babies, then knowledge cannot evolve.

I know. If schools can't teach settled science like women can have penises and men can have babies, then knowledge cannot evolve.

You're grabbing the apple tree to gripe about your sour oranges. Or should I say sour grapes. You're entitled to your opposition to trans people, however much I may disagree.....but that in no way exemplifies or defines the universe of scientific theory.

bighairymike: If schools can't teach settled science like women can have penises and men can have babies, then knowledge cannot evolve.


The bill is less than two pages and essentially states:

1. Science instruction may not include subject matter that is not scientific fact.

2. The board of public education may not include in content area standards any standard requiring curriculum or instruction in a scientific topic that is not scientific fact.

3. That a "scientific fact" means an indisputable and repeatable observation of a natural phenomenon. And the legislature intends for this section to be strictly enforced and narrowly interpreted.

Any parent may appeal any lack of compliance.

So, what, no Big Bang Theory, no evolution or natural selection, no cell theory or germ theory, no general relativity, special relativity, and no hologram theory? How about the laws of planetary motion, gravity, and thermodynamics? What about the principle of buoyancy?

Maybe every school district in Montana should create an intersex curriculum. Since as many as 1 in every 1,500 babies is born with genitals that cannot easily be classified as male or female, it wouldn't seem to violate the law, right?

Maybe every school district in Montana should create an intersex curriculum. Since as many as 1 in every 1,500 babies is born with genitals that cannot easily be classified as male or female, it wouldn't seem to violate the law, right?

----------------

Maybe schools should focus on teaching math and English rather than gender fluidity and CRT. Just a thought.

The bill we need passed:


1. Religious instruction may not include subject matter that is not fact.

2. The board of public education may not include in content area standards any standard requiring curriculum or instruction in a religious topic that is not fact.

3. That a "fact" means an indisputable and repeatable observation of a phenomenon. And the legislature intends for this section to be strictly enforced and narrowly interpreted.

Patiently staring at the rosemary bush waiting for it to spontaneously erupt.... waiting.

And ..about them golden plates Joe read in his hat with 'seeing stones.'

Yes, it's bogus. Written by someone either an evil genius, or a moron.

There are no scientific "facts". So "The Theory of Gravity" or "The Theory of Evolution" could be banned arbitrarily because it says "theory" right in the title. So, it was genius if that's what they wanted. Or it was moronic if they don't understand what a theory is.

Math has facts. Scientists will say "it's as close to a fact as anything can be", but whatever the scientific topic, it's still labeled "theory".

How can someone not recognize that this would outlaw in schools the kind of thinking that is essential to the evolution of knowledge and the process of discovering new facts. Back to the Dark Ages!

Religion needs to keep its flock ignorant so money flows into the collection plates.

Efforts by religious corporations, like repackaging creationism as "Intelligent Design", are hail mary passes at throwing shade on science....... (as if misrepresenting what a 'scientific theory' is, isn't enough) 🤯

Is religious opposition to education gaining popularity again, or is just the internet that creates that impression?

"Maybe schools should focus on teaching math and English rather than gender fluidity and CRT. Just a thought.

LOL

Tell me you get your news from nutter right wing echo chamber sources that take advantage of your ignorance without directly telling that you get your news from nutter right wing echo chamber sources.

You win.

"Maybe schools should focus on teaching math and English rather than gender fluidity and CRT. Just a thought.

LOL

Tell me you get your news from nutter right wing echo chamber sources that take advantage of your ignorance without directly telling that you get your news from nutter right wing echo chamber sources.

You win. - Umm

----------------

No you win. I see the light now. Forget STEM, pronouns are the key to ensure our security, prosperity and leadership in the world.

No you win. I see the light now.


I wish you really did.

>>No you win. I see the light now.<<


I wish you really did. - sheilia

------------------------

Right back atcha!

No you win. I see the light now. Forget STEM, pronouns are the key to ensure our security, prosperity and leadership in the world.

Can't teach STEM unless you teach theories. You knew that, right?

Can't teach STEM unless you teach theories. You knew that, right? - sykesix

---------------------

Teaching theories is fine with me. That Montana law taken literally and applied generally makes no sense. OTOH, appending the word "theory" to any idea does not automatically make it a legitimate subject to be taught in school.

And that is independent of whether the idea may or may not be an accepted fact. e.g. Bestiality is a real thing, a fact, but that doesn't make it a topic that should be taught to school children. And calling it Bestiality Theory doesn't change that.

'And that is independent of whether the idea may or may not be an accepted fact. e.g. Bestiality is a real thing, a fact, but that doesn't make it a topic that should be taught to school children. And calling it Bestiality Theory doesn't change that.'


Red Herring: This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them.

Red Herring: This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them. - PP

--------------------

Kindly remind me of what opposing argument I am not addressing. I agreed the Montana law was ill conceived. What else are you looking for?

Theory and hypothesis are commonly confused in the media.

That being said, deeper understanding of sexuality and gender should not be belittled because it offends someone's sensibilities. It is a reality. Failure to acknowledge this reality leads to oppression of this and other marginalized groups.

fd

Theory and hypothesis are commonly confused in the media.

Those concepts are intentionally misrepresented to the goobers by right wing media and right wing politicians.

"No you win. I see the light now. Forget STEM, pronouns are the key to ensure our security, prosperity and leadership in the world."

Even more LOL if that is what you think I was referring to.

Here is a helpful hint, it is very important that math, science, and logic are taught in our schools. It is LOL that you think gender identity pronouns and CRT are being taught instead.

Get better information sources. Get ones that inform you rather than ones that just confirm your existing beliefs.

Get better information sources. Get ones that inform you rather than ones that just confirm your existing beliefs. - Umm

-----------------

Right back atch'a!

"Right back atch'a!"

Your repeated use of that phrase in situations where it doesn't apply is just a diversionary tactic from your inability to address the arguments presented.

Just because you only look for "news" sources that confirm your opinions does not mean others do. There are plenty of people who like to learn new information even if that information makes them feel uncomfortable or challenges their beliefs.

When was the last time you had one of your strongly held opinions changed? Just one example will do.

Just because you only look for "news" sources that confirm your opinions does not mean others do. - Umm

---------------

This statement captures the essence of "Right back Atch'a".

To add a little soon-to-be-dismissed commentary, there is no point in making lengthy arguments or providing examples when the opposition will simply dismiss it as "faux news" or some such. On the old TMF Conservative board, we coined the term "fetching rocks" to capture an effort with no reward.

To add a little soon-to-be-dismissed commentary, there is no point in making lengthy arguments or providing examples when the opposition will simply dismiss it as "faux news" or some such.

If these examples or arguments supporting your stated convictions are founded on genuine facts and relevant, then it would either modify my view.....or enable me to say that I understand and accept your view, even if I don't agree with it. But that is not where we find ourselves, ufortunately.

Actually, you might be surprised. This is the Atheist board. If it is anything like the old TMF Atheist board, this is where you can introduce new ideas. You better be able to support them, but if you can, people change their minds here. I've changed my mind on several things over the years. Because people presented verifiable evidence/data that I was wrong about something. Many others have experienced that, too.

We can be...challenging... But we don't refute facts when presented with them. We also spot logical fallacies pretty quickly (which will generate snarky replies), as well as BS. But a well-thought-out argument will be discussed and debated.

"This statement captures the essence of "Right back Atch'a"."

No. It is just you doubling down on what you said and completely ignoring what was said. It is telling you could not name one strongly held belief you changed your mind on when challenged. Just of the top of my head

'To add a little soon-to-be-dismissed commentary, there is no point in making lengthy arguments or providing examples when the opposition will simply dismiss it as "faux news" or some such. On the old TMF Conservative board, we coined the term "fetching rocks" to capture an effort with no reward."

Once again you project your own behavior on to others. Just because you are incapable of assimilating new information and challenging previously held beliefs does not mean others are incapable of it as well. On the old Atheist board it happened a lot. Believe it or not, some people enjoy having their beliefs challenged. It effectively means they are learning something new, they are expanding their worldview and getting a greater understanding of the world.

As for your "faux news: comment, sometimes things should be dismissed because they are not serious. If you post articles from the National Enquirer about Bigfoot living in the forests outside Seattle and expect to be taken seriously then you won't be. This is where the quality of the information source comes in. The National Enquirer is not a quality source of information. Fox is not generally a quality source of information. It doesn't care about informing its viewers. It cares about generating emotion from its viewers so they continue to watch. Whether that is generating outrage or just reinforcing beliefs.

That said, your argument about "fetching rocks" is backwards. Posting a link is the easy part. Anyone can post a link to the National Enquirer about Bigfoot. Someone has to then take the time to research and explain why the link is wrong, only for you to then say the source is being simply dismissed. It is ironic that you refer to the Conservative Fools board because that was a place that was notorious for accepting viewpoints not on the strength of the evidence backing them, but simply on whether or not they were agreed with.

Besides, what you are failing to understand is it isn't just about politics, it is about a general outlook on life. Many people on the old Atheist Fools board were people looking to learn and understand the world. Part of learning is adapting viewpoints when presenting with contrary information. I seek out people who are looking to interact had be challenged. They might share an opinion (about any subject) and then when that opinion is criticized they adapt and sharpen their opinion based off of the criticism. I want people to challenge my opinions so I can change and adapt them as needed. I don't care if someone calls me an idiot in the heat of disagreement as long as they are interacting. Part of interacting is acknowledging points their opponents have made and adapting which then forces me to adapt and change my views.

Interacting doesn't mean constantly misrepresenting your opponents views. It doesn't mean that just because you can find a link somewhere on the internet supporting what you believe that it should be infallible.

Since these are new boards I am giving you a new chance to see if interacting with you is worth it by bringing this back to the point of my first post in this thread.

Do you think that a school system acknowledging the fact that a child could have two daddies means that they aren't teaching STEM subjects in schools?
Do you think that a school system acknowledging the fact that a child can be born with confusing genitalia, or a sexual preference that does not match their given genitalia means that STEM subjects are not being taught in schools?
Do you think that a school system acknowledging the fact that there is a patten of systemic racism in our justice system means that they are not teaching STEM subjects in schools?

Umm asks

Do you think that a school system acknowledging the fact that a child could have two daddies means that they aren't teaching STEM subjects in schools?
Do you think that a school system acknowledging the fact that a child can be born with confusing genitalia, or a sexual preference that does not match their given genitalia means that STEM subjects are not being taught in schools?
Do you think that a school system acknowledging the fact that there is a pattern of systemic racism in our justice system means that they are not teaching STEM subjects in schools?

---------------------------

MY unnuanced answer to all three questions is NO.

A separate question is whether a school should be "teaching" about confusing genitalia over the local parents objections. That answer is also No. An anecdote soon-to-be-dismissed, there was recent interview with a parent about a school in main giving a chest binder to their female daughter. The so-called guidance counselor also explained to the student, I am not going to tell your parents about this and my advice is that you don't either.

Concerning slavery and racism. It is about how it is taught. Slavery occurred and is a terrible part of of our history. Racism still exists in many ways. OK so far. Much progress has been made - seldom mentioned. White people are privileged and POC can't get ahead because of your skin color sows division and is not helpful in improving society.

Flame aay....

BTW, Schools are NOT doing an effective job of teaching STEM, and scores continuing to fall. This is a bigger problem that gender dysphoria. But STEM gets 1% of the emphasis that gender issues do.

https://beta.nsf.gov/science-matters/what-do-data-...

What do the data say about the current state of K-12 STEM education in the US?

A conversation with Julia Phillips of the National Science Board on the state of elementary and secondary STEM education in the nation.
.
.
.
.

What does the report tell us about K-12 STEM education?

What we see is that the performance of children in the U.S. has not kept pace with the performance of students from other countries in science and mathematics for a decade or more

.
.
.
... more at link

bighairymike: BTW, Schools are NOT doing an effective job of teaching STEM, and scores continuing to fall. This is a bigger problem that gender dysphoria. But STEM gets 1% of the emphasis that gender issues do.


One percent? Making up a statistic is no way to prove a point.

Anyway, quoting from your article: "You see huge differences in performance based on race and ethnicity, so that Asian and white students do much better on these standardized tests than students of color. And you also see that there is a huge difference based on the socioeconomic background of students ' students that are from higher socioeconomic backgrounds do much better than students from low socioeconomic backgrounds."

When asked why, Phillips said she didn't now why but "students of lower socioeconomic status or those from certain demographic groups tend to be in schools where teachers have less experience" and "teachers who are not originally educated in the fields that they teach".

Huh. Isn't she suggesting that "white people are privileged" and that POC have a harder time getting ahead because of the limitations that exist in their schools?

Finally, when I suggested that school districts "should be 'teaching' about confusing genitalia", I was making a joke based on the legislation we were discussing that would limit instruction to scientific facts rather than theories or principles since it's a medical fact that babies are born with genitalia that cannot easily be determined to be male or female, which would not violate the moronic legislation.

Please note: this post displays as "bold" in preview although it is not coded to do so... not sure what it'll look like posted. Guess we'll see.

"When asked why, Phillips said she didn't now why but "students of lower socioeconomic status or those from certain demographic groups tend to be in schools where teachers have less experience" and "teachers who are not originally educated in the fields that they teach".
''''''''''''''''''''''''''-
Huh. Isn't she suggesting that "white people are privileged" and that POC have a harder time getting ahead because of the limitations that exist in their schools?


And this unfortunate, pervasive, and persistent reality is part of the CRT umbrella, "critical race theory" being originally the academic term referring to the reality that racism isn't just the obvious avenues of discrimination....which can be legislated to eliminate....but also the ways in which it is insidiously built into the system. Becoming aware of these systemic barriers is the first step toward working to eliminate them.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.