Let's make America smart again

Skeptic Ginger

Nasty Woman
Skeptic Ginger
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
96,862
So says Neil deGrasse Tyson on Stephen Colbert tonight, and I couldn't agree more. Isn't that what the JREF is/was all about?

We have a hell of a lot more work to do.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
So says Neil deGrasse Tyson on Stephen Colbert tonight, and I couldn't agree more. Isn't that what the JREF is/was all about?

We have a hell of a lot more work to do.
Click to expand...

Yeah I saw that bit. I like Tyson. I think he's a great science communicator, and an enthousiastic one at that. Not sure the country is going in the direction he wants, however.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
So says Neil deGrasse Tyson on Stephen Colbert tonight, and I couldn't agree more. Isn't that what the JREF is/was all about?



We have a hell of a lot more work to do.
Click to expand...



Indeed.

What the USA seems to need is much more consistent primary and secondary education. If an American child lives in a wealthy suburb he/she will have quite decent public schools and depending on the wealth of the parents may go to the even better private schools.
If an American child grows up in a "blue collar" or urban environment, the public schools will be crap, and the private schools are financially out of reach.

This is a failure of public school funding system which restricts school budgets by the tax base of the families who use the schools. Thus there are large numbers of unhappy people trapped in their class, who have not learned any critical thinking skills, and are bound to be easily lead by a demagogue who promises to do whatever they want to hear.

Critical thinking education in ALL primary and secondary schools is much more important than free higher education a la Bernie Sanders.
 
MuDPhuD said:
Indeed.

What the USA seems to need is much more consistent primary and secondary education. If an American child lives in a wealthy suburb he/she will have quite decent public schools and depending on the wealth of the parents may go to the even better private schools.
If an American child grows up in a "blue collar" or urban environment, the public schools will be crap, and the private schools are financially out of reach.

This is a failure of public school funding system which restricts school budgets by the tax base of the families who use the schools. Thus there are large numbers of unhappy people trapped in their class, who have not learned any critical thinking skills, and are bound to be easily lead by a demagogue who promises to do whatever they want to hear.

Critical thinking education in ALL primary and secondary schools is much more important than free higher education a la Bernie Sanders.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
Critical thinking is only part of the problem. There is a problem with understanding that we really are equal, no matter how we look and who and how we worshop, or even worship at all. Even if there is no profession of privelage by certain groups, there is certainly a difference in treatment. Let me expound a bit.
White, black, yellow, should not make a difference. Yet black neighborhoods are called "bad neighborhoods", and black politicians get voted for by blacks, whites by whites, and so on. Even socially - interracial dating is rare, as are interracial friendships it seems. In effect, we treat each other based on superficialities, whether we admit it or not.
Allah, God, YHWH, Vishnu, no-God - should not make a difference. And it does. Atheists can't get elected. Muslims are suspicious by default.
Basically, we have a severe kindness and respect deficiency in America. Teach Critical Thinking? You bet. Don't hang your hat on it solving the divisions in American Society, however. Teach kindness and respect to all people also - and whatever else needs to be taught to repair divisiveness.
 
LSSBB said:
Critical thinking is only part of the problem. There is a problem with understanding that we really are equal, no matter how we look and who and how we worshop, or even worship at all. Even if there is no profession of privelage by certain groups, there is certainly a difference in treatment. Let me expound a bit.
White, black, yellow, should not make a difference.
Click to expand...

Yeah but that's more about ideology than science and smarts, I think.
 
LSSBB said:
Not getting your point. Physiologically, we are all pretty much human beings, correct? What is the ideological angle?
Click to expand...

Well, "should" is a value judgment, first.

But suppose, for the sake of argument, that you could show that black people were superior to whites athletically (on average) but inferior intellectually, due to some genetic predisposition based on the little difference between the two. You and I would agree that the two groups still need to be treated as equals in society, but you couldn't deny that there are real differences that affect their ability to perform in various fields (on average). Now, I can't speak for the latter, but black people _do _ appear better than us in athletic fields.

My point was that, although ideologically I agree that all should be treated equally as people regardless of trivial things like skin colour, it does not follow that there are no real differences that make one group better than another in some field or another. We're not the same, and might not be "really equal" in that sense.

I guess what I'm saying is that we should be careful not to project our values onto objective reality.
 
portlandatheist said:
Among white college grads, Trump got 49% of their vote and Clinton got 45%. We have a more serious problem than higher education will remedy.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html?_r=0
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, "higher education" is not very high. We see people on this forum routinely rejecting mainstream science for their own crackpot notions, having no regard or respect for the hard work and years of accumulated knowledge of people with expertise. People deny climate science, medical science, physics, etc. regardless of their own lack of training and understanding. It's pathetic!
 
Last edited:
Perpetual Student said:
Unfortunately, "higher education" is not very high. We see people on this forum routinely rejecting mainstream science for their own crackpot notions, having no regard or respect for the hard work and years of accumulated knowledge of people with expertise. People deny climate science, medical science, physics, etc. regardless of their own lack of training and understanding. It's pathetic!
Click to expand...

I think this is something that populists, whether from the left or right, share: a complete contempt for expert opinion of any kind be it military, economists, scientists, etc. and also the embrace of conspiracy theories. In short, they believe whatever they want to believe and education, scientific expertise etc are simply dismissed in favor or truthiness.
 
MuDPhuD said:
Indeed.

What the USA seems to need is much more consistent primary and secondary education. If an American child lives in a wealthy suburb he/she will have quite decent public schools and depending on the wealth of the parents may go to the even better private schools.
If an American child grows up in a "blue collar" or urban environment, the public schools will be crap, and the private schools are financially out of reach.

This is a failure of public school funding system which restricts school budgets by the tax base of the families who use the schools. Thus there are large numbers of unhappy people trapped in their class, who have not learned any critical thinking skills, and are bound to be easily lead by a demagogue who promises to do whatever they want to hear.

Critical thinking education in ALL primary and secondary schools is much more important than free higher education a la Bernie Sanders.
Click to expand...

Critical thinking is important, the real issue the US faces is understanding reliable vs unreliable information sources. Back when people go most of their information from newspapers etc, sources were vetted even if you didn’t do it yourself. The Internet allows people to search for sources that tell them what they want to hear and consequently the “facts” they base their decisions on are frequently produced with the express purpose of directing them to specific conclusion.
 
portlandatheist said:
I think this is something that populists, whether from the left or right, share: a complete contempt for expert opinion of any kind be it military, economists, scientists, etc. and also the embrace of conspiracy theories. In short, they believe whatever they want to believe and education, scientific expertise etc are simply dismissed in favor or truthiness.
Click to expand...

That's because they reject the idea that other people may know better than themselves. They are suspicious of the idea that someone other than them may genuinely know what's best for them more than they do themselves. They are also enamoured with their own feelings and draw conclusions from those, trusting their gut over facts because facts are cold and uncomfortable while you can imagine any fuzzy fantasy you want.

It's a mode of thinking which is entirely alien to me, and at that I really think that there are two types of people, possibly distinguished genetically, even.
 
Last edited:
lomiller said:
Critical thinking is important, the real issue the US faces is understanding reliable vs unreliable information sources. Back when people go most of their information from newspapers etc, sources were vetted even if you didn’t do it yourself. The Internet allows people to search for sources that tell them what they want to hear and consequently the “facts” they base their decisions on are frequently produced with the express purpose of directing them to specific conclusion.
Click to expand...

I blame the news media (among many people who are to blame) for being more concerned with equal time than actual investigative reporting.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I blame the news media (among many people who are to blame) for being more concerned with equal time than actual investigative reporting.
Click to expand...

They are required to give "equal" coverage by law. Thus, the endless slipped-in mentions of suspected Hillary shenanigans while reporting actual Trump stuff that would have destroyed any other candidate in the last century.
 
Jrrarglblarg said:
They are required to give "equal" coverage by law. Thus, the endless slipped-in mentions of suspected Hillary shenanigans while reporting actual Trump stuff that would have destroyed any other candidate in the last century.
Click to expand...
The Fairness Doctrine was revoked.

But even if it weren't, they didn't need to cover hundreds of Trump speeches live, they didn't need to give the Trumpettes a platform day after day without challenging their never-ending spewing of lies.

And they could have covered Clinton honestly instead of making money off ginning up the scandals and constantly reminding us she got low trust results in the polls. They could have done a better job explaining Comey's ruling not to prosecute.

Again, the media is but one of many failures and things/people that have some blame in this.
 
Last edited:
I fully expect states to be given the right to teach however they want, evolution, climate change, human health, etc. It is going to be a major uphill battle in the skepticism movement in the coming years and bringing young people in who have been though these state's education systems will be of upmost importance.
 
RussDill said:
I fully expect states to be given the right to teach however they want, evolution, climate change, human health, etc. It is going to be a major uphill battle in the skepticism movement in the coming years and bringing young people in who have been though these state's education systems will be of upmost importance.
Click to expand...

I thought they already had these rights, hence the furor in Texas over evolution every few years.
 
Jrrarglblarg said:
They are required to give "equal" coverage by law. Thus, the endless slipped-in mentions of suspected Hillary shenanigans while reporting actual Trump stuff that would have destroyed any other candidate in the last century.
Click to expand...

Do they also give "equal time" to all religions (including non-believers)? Of course not! So-called "equal time" is a meaningless mantra.
Journalists are generally as ignorant of science as the general population.
 
Last week Joe Fleedouple of the Podunk Daily-Tribune-Breeze was resaurant critic; today he is the science editor.
 
Argumemnon said:
Well, "should" is a value judgment, first.

But suppose, for the sake of argument, that you could show that black people were superior to whites athletically (on average) but inferior intellectually, due to some genetic predisposition based on the little difference between the two. You and I would agree that the two groups still need to be treated as equals in society, but you couldn't deny that there are real differences that affect their ability to perform in various fields (on average). Now, I can't speak for the latter, but black people _do _ appear better than us in athletic fields.

My point was that, although ideologically I agree that all should be treated equally as people regardless of trivial things like skin colour, it does not follow that there are no real differences that make one group better than another in some field or another. We're not the same, and might not be "really equal" in that sense.

I guess what I'm saying is that we should be careful not to project our values onto objective reality.
Click to expand...

Well, if you want to get into scientific comparisons of abilities and bell curves of the diversity of humanity against each other, I think your going to lose any chance of making a significant change.

"Should" may be a value judgement - this "should" value judgement is enshrined in the American Declaration of Independence.
 
Last edited:
Jrrarglblarg said:
They are required to give "equal" coverage by law. Thus, the endless slipped-in mentions of suspected Hillary shenanigans while reporting actual Trump stuff that would have destroyed any other candidate in the last century.
Click to expand...

No they aren't. The stations (more specifically the corporate HQ s of the stations/news bureaus) decide coverage amount and type. They are required to do the equal time thing ONLY in regard to specific things like, mostly, advertising. And I am not certain that even holds any more.


Back...More well defined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule
 
Argumemnon said:
Well, "should" is a value judgment, first.

But suppose, for the sake of argument, that you could show that black people were superior to whites athletically (on average) but inferior intellectually, due to some genetic predisposition based on the little difference between the two. You and I would agree that the two groups still need to be treated as equals in society, but you couldn't deny that there are real differences that affect their ability to perform in various fields (on average). Now, I can't speak for the latter, but black people _do _ appear better than us in athletic fields.

My point was that, although ideologically I agree that all should be treated equally as people regardless of trivial things like skin colour, it does not follow that there are no real differences that make one group better than another in some field or another. We're not the same, and might not be "really equal" in that sense.

I guess what I'm saying is that we should be careful not to project our values onto objective reality.
Click to expand...

So then..."let's make America smart again" is an ideal?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
The Fairness Doctrine was revoked.

But even if it weren't, they didn't need to cover hundreds of Trump speeches live, they didn't need to give the Trumpettes a platform day after day without challenging their never-ending spewing of lies.

And they could have covered Clinton honestly instead of making money off ginning up the scandals and constantly reminding us she got low trust results in the polls. They could have done a better job explaining Comey's ruling not to prosecute.

Again, the media is but one of many failures and things/people that have some blame in this.
Click to expand...

Not just some - they own this ****-fit!!!! Along with the trumpf deplorables and the Democrat deplorables who didn't vote or voted for trump, and the flaming tirds on your front porch who voted for any 3rd party. May they enjoy eternity in hell!!!
 
What the filth who is now the president elect and his cult miss with their "Make America Great Again" hats is that they want to get back to a time when we were really good at STEM. The hair and his overtly anti intellectual cult miss the fact that the era they want to return to is one when every kid studied math so they could be an astronaut; our heros were geeks with slide rulers who figured out how to get the Apollo 13 crew home and Marlyin Monroe said Einstein was the sexiest man alive. Our greatness in that period was directly relational to our prowess at science, technology, engineering and math. The hair and his cult are in no position to recreate that.
 
psionl0 said:
Where do you propose that we put all the Americans that are deported? :duck:
Click to expand...
They should go live in another country for sure. Seriously!

We get a bit too lax and laid back here in Australia sometimes, and our government is the lackadaisical type that tends to hand off any "hard work" or "new ideas" to someone else to do - it's all too hard for them to conceive. So we could do with an injection of Yank enthusiasm here, provided they left their guns in the USA of course. ;)
 
Norman Alexander said:
We get a bit too lax and laid back here in Australia sometimes, and our government is the lackadaisical type that tends to hand off any "hard work" or "new ideas" to someone else to do - it's all too hard for them to conceive. So we could do with an injection of Yank enthusiasm here, provided they left their guns in the USA of course. ;)
Click to expand...


I don't know... do you guys have anything else to offer? How about a dark-skinned minority mired in poverty and crime? That will make us feel at home.
 
MuDPhuD said:
Indeed.

What the USA seems to need is much more consistent primary and secondary education. If an American child lives in a wealthy suburb he/she will have quite decent public schools and depending on the wealth of the parents may go to the even better private schools.
If an American child grows up in a "blue collar" or urban environment, the public schools will be crap, and the private schools are financially out of reach.

This is a failure of public school funding system which restricts school budgets by the tax base of the families who use the schools. Thus there are large numbers of unhappy people trapped in their class, who have not learned any critical thinking skills, and are bound to be easily lead by a demagogue who promises to do whatever they want to hear.

Critical thinking education in ALL primary and secondary schools is much more important than free higher education a la Bernie Sanders.
Click to expand...

This is true in the UK as well. The exceptions are Inner London state schools; they despite having a poor and ethnically diverse population including many students with poor English have achieved excellent outcomes. I am unclear how they have done this, but it should be a lesson for other public education systems.
 
Smart TVs, smart watches, smart cars, now you want smart America, that'll take one helluva chip.
 
LSSBB said:
Well, if you want to get into scientific comparisons of abilities and bell curves of the diversity of humanity against each other, I think your going to lose any chance of making a significant change.
Click to expand...

Sure, it's political poison, but politics, though they can twist fact and hide them, cannot change them.

What I'm saying, in short, is that we might not really be equal, except in principle.

Navigator said:
So then..."let's make America smart again" is an ideal?
Click to expand...

Of course.
 
Argumemnon said:
Sure, it's political poison, but politics, though they can twist fact and hide them, cannot change them.

What I'm saying, in short, is that we might not really be equal, except in principle.
Click to expand...
What needs to be made clear is that differences between populations do not justify discrimination against individuals, because there is no way of knowing where on the bell curve that describes the population any individual is.

For example if I need to employ someone at least 5'10" tall to stack shelves, say, I can't put "no women need apply" in the job advert even though there are more men than women that meet that requirement because there are still plenty of women who do meet it, and plenty of men who don't. "No-one under 5'10" need apply", is the only fair way to discriminate, because only the legitimate requirements for the job are grounds for discrimination.

There are very few jobs for which being male or having skin of a particular colour are a legitimate requirement. Discrimination based on membership of demographic groups such as gender or ethnicity is almost always going to be unfair discrimination.
 
Pixel42 said:
What needs to be made clear is that differences between populations do not justify discrimination against individuals
Click to expand...

Absolutely, and I hope no one thinks I was arguing for that. I was simply trying to remind us that principles may not match objective reality. Maybe black are smarter than whites. Wouldn't make a difference to me, even if, objectively, they'd be better than us in that respect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom