posted
Auntie Eem, Noemon is right, threads drift from topic to topic. Somtimes the titles are changed to reflect that, usually not, I guess. I never thought about it, but he may be right that starting a new thread kills the new topic.
As far as the animosity goes, speaking only for myself, I have nothing against Irami personally. I think he was rude and insensitive in his comments earlier about the moral failings of overweight people, and absurdly dismissive of medical info about genetics, different metabolisms and body types, etc. But I'm over that now.
Now he's just gotten weird, wanting to scrap math and science education in pursuit of some illusive ideal.
We are pretty tolerant in general of opinion at Hatrack, but if you can't back up your opinion with facts, well,...people will call you on it.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Teaching only some students math and science would probably result in an elite class of mathematicians, scientists and engineers. Particularly if the demand for those people is high. Not only would the general public be too uninformed to make good decisions on what science ought to be conducted (imagine trying to have a debate on embryonic stem cells if people didn't understand why stem cells are useful, or God forbid, what embryos are), but the technical types will be richer and probably more powerful.
I also object to the idea that science and technology are merely driving blind, greedy consumerism. Who will find a cure for cancer, or AIDS? Who will ensure that everyone has access to clean water? Who will find renewable sources of energy? (And yes, we need to find new energy sources, unless you think that a population crash is a permissible way of reducing our consumption of energy--this isn't about sustaining our ability to consume, it's about surviving). It will be the scientists and engineers who do these things, and the more we have, the more quickly we can solve the problems that kill millions or billions of people. Before people can learn to lead honorable, meaningful lives, they have to be able to live at all.
posted
Morbo I think that is my proplem with his flow. He hasn't been very respectful to any one in particular but expects all to be respectful in return. I geuss I was raised differently. To achieve respect one must earn it and give it.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Irami is one of the posters that you (you = respectable posters like Noemon (not me) ) are polite to in spite of his own behavior and the inanity of his content.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My problem there is more energy is spent on getting kids to know how to build things rather than getting them to think about what ought to be built.
I think that mechanical knowledge offers a narrow, soft ground on those important questions. Efficiency and stability are fine engineering principles, but they are left wanting in the face of the ills of society. *chuckles* To put it in a sci/fi context, it's the foundation of all of those mad scientist/Michael Chriton books.
Noeman, if the emphasis were removed from math and science, and placed on humanities, I think a broader swath of people would be drawn into the virtue of education, live better lives, and make better decisions. Fewer people would be overweight, or in jail, or committing crime, have high credit card debt, and it may be the case that we'd put what engineering might we had into sustainable fuel, even if that means that cell phones would be a little bit bigger and personal computers a little bit slower.
Edit:
A problem is that educational institutions work asymmetrically to serve one segment of the population with one set of goals, and the penal system works to serve another set of the population with another set of goals, and I'm not sure that that has to be the case, because at the root, the goals aren't that seperate, even if the priorities are.
posted
Hmm, good point, Auntie Eem. But is the disrespect inherent in Iarami's opinions, or in the way he presents them?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*pout* I posted a consequence - jobs would leave to where the skilled workers are, since the demand for them would not abate.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morbo-It is hard to bring myelf to read through the disrespect to get to the content. I have come to the conclusion the he is or seems to be intillegent. I just can't absorbe his theory through his anger and biting remarks.It is enough that I deal with biggotry in the outside world with out having to acknowledge it here. Posts: 63 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Irami, do you disagree with kat's assertion that unemployment rates would go up?
It seems to me that the results would actually be more drastic than those that she outlined. With very few native engineering and science students entering universities, it seems to me that engineering and science departments would shrink dramatically, deteriorate in terms of the type of work they were able to train students in, and eventually die off almost completely. For a short time foreign student attendance would keep enrollment high enough to sustain the programs, but it wouldn't take more than a generation or two, I would guess, for the brain drain phenomenon to stop drawing gifted foreign students to our country. In this country, anyway, I don't think that there would be enough scientists and engineers to make a tremendous difference in solving the problems Shigosei outlined in her post.
I don't disagree with the idea that it is dangerous to study only the hard science and neglect skills such as critical thinking and logic--I feel that as a society we *don't* have our priorities straight in terms of where and how we apply our technical skills and scientific knowledge. I don't, however, think that the answer is to do away with the technical and scientific elements of the curriculum.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
We already get a large percentage of our science and math grad students from other countries. So I don't see the departments dying. [Addit: a significant percentage do return to their native countries after a decade or two, and I imagine that might continue.]
Rather, I see us importing the vast majority of such grad students. And then likely keeping them here as workers (again, we already do this quite a bit). But demand would go up drastically, and we would probably have little difficulty attracting enough people from such places as Japan and India.
Actually, it might really help the economy of some third world countries, if enough of their people came here for grad studies and employment, and sent money home.
posted
That's an interesting thought rivka. I knew that a large percentage of our students in science and engineering came from overseas, and that the "brain drain" phenomenon was a problem for those countries, but I didn't realize that the numbers were as high as they must be if you're arguing that having an almost exclusively foreign student body in the sciences would be able to sustain the schools. I'll have to do some digging and see what I can come up with in terms of numbers.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Noeman, at bottom, I think that engineers would still be engineers, they would pick it up later or as an elective. Would unemployment rates go up? I can't tell you. It's a tricky externality. If we aren't spending as much money on social services for those good people have haven't read enough good books, and our populace is of the quality to spend disposable income on research such as cleaner fuel, it could very well be the case that we make an industry out of clean fuel production.
I imagine that we'd have better artists from more vibrant cities, making the US even more attractive for visitors, and even a greater cultural paragon. When I mention a sensiblities change, I think the effects would be deeper and pervasive and even subtle in their way.
Noeman, I'm talking about a large priority shift. The people in Texas, Arizona and California don't complain that their gardeners are foreigners. It's not the exact same, but it is true that our economy would change. I also don't think it would effect the engineers nearly as much as the techs.
posted
You are counting on people picking up math and science as adults, after a lifetime of education has failed them.
This does not happen now; why would it begin to happen?
----
Essentially, it seems that you wish for people to read more good books. Why do you need to eliminate math and science to do so?
My father is one of the most well-read people I have ever met, and got myself and my brothers started on classics, philosophy, and history for fun before junior high. He also has a degree in science (geology) and currently owns a successful business. Why is that such an impossible aspiration that it's necessary to eliminate science and condemn business to achieve it?
posted
I really don't know numbers. And I know more about specific schools (UCLA because I attended, and Caltech because my dad helps pick incoming grad students) than in general.
But the fact is, qualified American grad students in math and the sciences are courted assiduously by good schools -- flown out, taken to dinner, introduced to the school's muckity-mucks -- in large part because there are so few.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seriously, Rivka? Does this apply to engineers, too? I've been sort of worrying about getting into grad school because my research has been mostly in biochem rather than bioengineering (which is what I'm majoring in), and I don't work during the school year.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know. I also don't know what GRE scores make one "courtable."
Did you want me to ask my dad? I don't know how much he'll know -- he deals exclusively with math and physics students, I think.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, don't go out of your way, but if it happens to come up in conversation, I'd be curious to know.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Irami, there would undoubtedly be some people who would embrace science or engineering despite not having been taught it in school beyond a fairly rudimentary level, but the number who would be able to overcome the lack of training in these fields during their childhoods would probably be incredibly small--not enough to supply the country's needs, even with a populace that had a better understanding of what those needs really were. And of course, with most people not having any science training beyond the grade school level (I don't think that you've explicitly stated how much science education you would institute under your plan, so if I'm wrong here tell me) there is the question of whether the general public would be informed enough on science issues to have a clear idea of what our scientific and technological priorities should be, even if they had minds more capable than ours of determining that information given the proper data.
Did that last sentence make any sense? Seems like it was a mile long, and a bit on the convoluted side.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is, it's not just the future scientists and engineers we need to worry about.
Suppose we made the math and science classes available, but optional. That would likely take care of the need for science/math people, but would leave us with an awful lot of adults who are scientifically illiterate.
That's a big enough problem NOW! >_<
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Essentially, it seems that you wish for people to read more good books. Why do you need to eliminate math and science to do so?
My father is one of the most well-read people I have ever met, and got myself and my brothers started on classics, philosophy, and history for fun before junior high. He also has a degree in science (geology) and currently owns a successful business. Why is that such an impossible aspiration that it's necessary to eliminate science and condemn business to achieve it?
I think you are right next to the problem, but remember, this discussion all started because of an "achievement gap," and I think that this "achievement gap" is the result of a lot of things, including market forces along with the easy of administering of math and science courses compromising the academic curriculum in inappropriate ways.
We already saw how an argument about the purpose of educational institutions was dictated by fear of what people in foreign lands are learning. I don't think is appropriate, and I don't think that this is appropriate in a deep way, especially as we have a lot of humanitarian work to do to keep our own house in order.
Rivka,
quote:That would likely take care of the need for science/math people, but would leave us with an awful lot of adults who are scientifically illiterate.
You see this as a bigger problem than I do. My worry is not the math phobic people, my worry is those who are confused in other, more human areas.
posted
I'm going to guess that many of the major proponents of renewable energy are scientists, not English teachers. Having fewer scientists or even having the same number with a less science-literate public won't help us much. I think that we need to have our values straight *and* understand the issues. Which is why we need to have a balance between science and humanities.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Essentially, it seems that you wish for people to read more good books. Why do you need to eliminate math and science to do so?
My father is one of the most well-read people I have ever met, and got myself and my brothers started on classics, philosophy, and history for fun before junior high. He also has a degree in science (geology) and currently owns a successful business. Why is that such an impossible aspiration that it's necessary to eliminate science and condemn business to achieve it? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you are right next to the problem, but remember, this all started because of an "achievement gap," and I think that this "achievement gap" is the result of a lot of things, including market forces along with the easy of administering math and science compromising the academic curriculum in inappropriate ways.
We already saw how an argument about the purpose of educational institutions was dictated by fear of people in foreign lands are learning. I don't think is appropriate, and I don't think that this is appropriate in a deep way, especially as we have a lot of humanitarian work to do to keep our own house in order.
What? Less dancing around; more clarity.
If I can parse what you said and add in other comments, you seem to be saying that it's not impossible, but not everyone has a parent who does that. Is that right?
Then you tried to muddy up the point with dragging in other issues that have nothing to do with the question you are answering. You are such a politician.
quote:I'm going to guess that many of the major proponents of renewable energy are scientists, not English teachers.
I don't know about that. I will grant that it's the science people who have a more technically informed opinion. But if scientists and the English teachers are for renewable resources, pray tell, who is holding this up?
quote:I get around on a bike owing to my humanitarian sensibilities
And where you live. You live in an area with limited ground space, high tax base so there is lots of public transportation, and controlled rents so you can live near your work. Is it your contention that everyone who does not live in a high-concentration city is doing so because they don't care about humanity?
Why all the self-righteousness?
You actually edited it to put in the self-righteous comments.
posted
And instead of digging to the ugliness of where blame and shame for this belongs, and yes, it's going to reduce to character, it's easier to just change priorities, maybe commission a study, and pretend that it's okay to continue guzzling oil.
In my mind, it's the same process as what OSC introduced on the first page.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, people with good character live in the Bay Area and in New York, and people who live other places have bad character?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is still a generally-agreed upon definition. I'm not surprised but still disgusted the Irami believes it is determined by address and skin color.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
OSC's argument is that we shouldn't see pudgy people as pudgy, even though there is an epidemic of pudginess in America and it's not good. I think we could put a big dent in it if people thought more about what they ate, were willing to sacrifice, had not obtained these bad habits in the first place. (That was the first seven pages)
I think it's the same deal with renewable resources.
I also believe more people would eat better and drive less with a more rigorous early education in the humanities.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, seriously. I don't think there is a generally agreed upon definition of good character. This term is way too vague.
Posts: 410 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, his argument is that we shouldn't see pudgy people as freaks, and that we shouldn't see stick-thin people as gods.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Irami, your summary of what you are saying rarely, if ever, matches what you have said. Are you backing off of the "throw out all math and science; it makes for immoral people" argument, because it sounds so ridiculous when summed up?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think there is a generally agreed upon definition of good character. This term is way too vague.
No. 6, you are not going to find an adequate definition. Virtue is phenomena. It's like pornography, you know it when you are in its presence. It doesn't mean it's subjective, rather, it just isn't perfectly finite, so it doesn't have a definition.
You can go do dictionary.com or someone where else, but you'll just find an inadequate standard, kind of like what Flying Cow spoke of in the teachers thread.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Without a strong science background, the only way people can know about the sustainability problem is by believing it when others tell them about it. Fine - all knowledge is in some sense dependent on that.
But, without a strong science background, they will have no way to evaluate competing scientific arguments. That's why some idiot with a high-voltage, low-current electric motor tools around telling people his car runs on the current of one common 9-volt battery.
It does. But it runs on the voltage of 10,000 9-volt batteries. Yet there's a significant number of people who think this guy could "solve the energy crisis." Why? Because they lack basic understandings of science you don't think they should learn.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Builds character.
