- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Another win for academic freedom
Posted on 4/24/14 at 12:41 pm
Posted on 4/24/14 at 12:41 pm
5
Posted on 4/24/14 at 12:49 pm to swampdawg
What's the definition of "academic freedom" exactly?
Posted on 4/24/14 at 12:51 pm to swampdawg
I don't think the opponents are correct in their opinion, yes some proponents may believe the earth was created 6000 years ago, but I would say 99 percent of christians think the earth s very much older, so the opponents are basically lying.
Posted on 4/24/14 at 12:53 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
What's the definition of "academic freedom" exactly?
The ability to teach your preferred dogma in science classrooms without fear of repercussions?
Posted on 4/24/14 at 1:05 pm to swampdawg
quote:
The lone “yes” vote was cast by state Sen. Dan Claitor, R-Baton Rouge.
Really like Claitor.
Shouldn't any supplemental material actually be grounded in the arena of science if it is to be taught in science class?
Posted on 4/24/14 at 1:11 pm to Green Chili Tiger
quote:
The ability to teach your preferred dogma in science classrooms without fear of repercussions?
So under the current law, a science teacher can spew out anything they want to people's kids and collect a taxpayer funded paycheck for it?
Posted on 4/24/14 at 1:14 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
So under the current law, a science teacher can spew out anything they want to people's kids and collect a taxpayer funded paycheck for it?
That would be my first question. What are the standards for this "supplemental material?"
Posted on 4/24/14 at 1:15 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
That would be my first question. What are the standards for this "supplemental material?"
According to the article, there are no standards for what it means. Definitely sounds like great law
Posted on 4/24/14 at 1:17 pm to swampdawg
I'm sorry, but "academic freedom" is a concept that best belongs in universities and private schools. I have my opinions about the "supplemental materials," but I won't go there. I'd feel the same way about teachers fighting to discuss totally radical theories of physics in high school. It is not the place. High school is for building a foundation.
Should students be taught to question things? Yes. Do that in English and History. Discuss whether or not the founders were as great as they are portrayed. Discuss whether or not the entire Nazi party was bad. Whatever. Skepticism is good.
But skepticism of science and math is not really productive until you understand the foundations first. If you want to try to debunk evolution, have at it... as an educated adult. To do otherwise is wasting the time of other kids who want to learn the basics. When I was in high school, it would have seemed F'ing retarded for some kid to start speculating that maybe the lysosome is responsible for causing cell division (it isn't). On the other hand, when someone with a graduate degree in cell biology says that, I'm more inclined to listen. THAT is what academic freedom is for.
I can't even believe that we're entertaining the idea that children in high school will be adversely affected without "academic freedom" in the sciences and math.
Oh, and before one of you numbskulls brings it up, I am not advocating for the closed discussion of anthropogenic climate change. That is a politically driven debate and the evidence is nowhere near as strong as the evidence for evolution.
Should students be taught to question things? Yes. Do that in English and History. Discuss whether or not the founders were as great as they are portrayed. Discuss whether or not the entire Nazi party was bad. Whatever. Skepticism is good.
But skepticism of science and math is not really productive until you understand the foundations first. If you want to try to debunk evolution, have at it... as an educated adult. To do otherwise is wasting the time of other kids who want to learn the basics. When I was in high school, it would have seemed F'ing retarded for some kid to start speculating that maybe the lysosome is responsible for causing cell division (it isn't). On the other hand, when someone with a graduate degree in cell biology says that, I'm more inclined to listen. THAT is what academic freedom is for.
I can't even believe that we're entertaining the idea that children in high school will be adversely affected without "academic freedom" in the sciences and math.
Oh, and before one of you numbskulls brings it up, I am not advocating for the closed discussion of anthropogenic climate change. That is a politically driven debate and the evidence is nowhere near as strong as the evidence for evolution.
This post was edited on 4/24/14 at 1:20 pm
Posted on 4/24/14 at 1:21 pm to Tigerlaff
quote:
Should students be taught to question things?
Some of these politicians should be encouraged to question gravity.
This post was edited on 4/24/14 at 1:26 pm
Posted on 4/24/14 at 1:37 pm to Tigerlaff
quote:
But skepticism of science and math is not really productive until you understand the foundations first
I agree, which is why high science classes should stick teaching the foundations. Hearing a 30 year-old teacher with a B.S. in Biology wax-poetic about abiogenesis is not beneficial to anyone.
Posted on 4/24/14 at 1:46 pm to swampdawg
Posted on 4/24/14 at 1:52 pm to a want
A religious based controversy has no place in a publicly-funded high school science class.
Posted on 4/24/14 at 1:54 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
Really like Claitor.
Good guy. Elbert Guillory may be retarded.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News