New Ohio law allows students to be scientifically wrong.

[Subduction Zone]

We get by now you see it that way. Not my problem, I happen to know Him, and He is nothing like that.

Hey! Me too. He lives just down the block from me. But even you have to admit that he is one heck of a mean drunk.

 

[ecco]

OK..'your biased view of God has no resemblance to the views expressed by Jesus'.

Feel better?

Ah. You missed the word "no". That's OK. But I still gotta wonder if that was a type or a Freudian slip. I guess we'll never know for sure.

But, I do agree that my views of God are probably not the same as Jesus's views of God. The big difference is that you can read my views as I write them. With Jesus, you only have second and third-hand information and allegations since Jesus never wrote anything.

He worked with a wicked world that He was setting a nation up to save!

Riiight. Treat your creations horribly in order to set them up to be saved.

 

[dad]

Sure, bub. Sure. I bet "he" was just ... like... YOU.

Ain't that a peach? I also predict you will miss this point entirely as well...

... just as you are unable to show a single bible verse supporting your claim, above.

Anyone can know Him by the life of Jesus, and Scripture.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Anyone can know Him by the life of Jesus, and Scripture.

Except for you, apparently.... your comments do not match any actual scripture...

Oh well. It's not unexpected.

 

[gnostic]

The Ohio House passed a law that says that students cannot be counted wrong, even in a science class, if their answers are in line with their religion:

Ohio House passes bill allowing student answers to be scientifically wrong due to religion

In other words, the suggestion is that science teachers are not in the business of teaching science, but in catering to religious dogma.

Why anyone would consider this to be appropriate is beyond me.

Wow, so the Ohio government want to take 160-year steps backward in time?

 

[dad]

Except for you, apparently.... your comments do not match any actual scripture...

Oh well. It's not unexpected.

Creation actually is found from cover to cover. Your comments and beliefs do not match reality or truth.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Creation actually is found from cover to cover. Your comments and beliefs do not match reality or truth.

1) there are no creation facts in evidence
2) the bible isn't factual -- this has been proven multiple times-- for example, nothing in Exodus happened in actual history
3) I have no beliefs of any sort-- not how you use the word 'believe'
4) You keep using the word "truth" incorrectly. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[dad]

1) there are no creation facts in evidence

Science cannot deal in God creating life and the universe. Face it. Your inabilities do not mean nothing is available, only that whatever is available is beyond your particular reach.
I accept that the evidences that proved the bible was right also apply to what we can't check out or verify.
Creation/origins is only a matter of faith. Science uses faith, and so do Christians. What is offensive and vile is the pretense that science knows.

2) the bible isn't factual -- this has been proven multiple times-- for example, nothing in Exodus happened in actual history

Not sure who sold you that nonsense. Of course it is history.

3) I have no beliefs of any sort-- not how you use the word 'believe'

Whatever you believe or not doesn't matter. Science uses beliefs in modeling the past. If you agree with them you use beliefs.

4) You keep using the word "truth" incorrectly. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Jesus told us what truth is. Why would I need your opinion?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Science cannot deal in God creating life and the universe. .

Indeed. Science does not deal with fantasy, delusions nor myth.

I accept that the evidences that proved the bible was right also apply to what we can't check out or verify..

"evidences"? Citation needed: Claim made without any actual evidence.

Creation/origins is only a matter of faith. .

So you ADMIT you have absolutely no actual evidence? With faith? You can believe in Magic Pixies. And you have JUST as much reason to believe in Magic Pixies as your bible...

Science uses faith, .

False. Just because you don't understand it, does not mean you can insert "gawd" as a replacement for refusing to actually think...

Not sure who sold you that nonsense. Of course it is history..

Of course it is NOT. You cannot point to a single fact, pot, or statue that shows otherwise.

Jesus told us what truth is.

"Jesus"? He never wrote a single thing down.... but he "told" You?

 

[dad]

Indeed. Science does not deal with fantasy, delusions nor myth.

It is not aware of it at least for the most part we would hope.

"evidences"? Citation needed: Claim made without any actual evidence.

Evidences for God are out of the little science box.

So you ADMIT you have absolutely no actual evidence? With faith? You can believe in Magic Pixies. And you have JUST as much reason to believe in Magic Pixies as your bible...

More importantly I admit science has faith. Of course God's people should have faith, no news there.

False. Just because you don't understand it, does not mean you can insert "gawd" as a replacement for refusing to actually think...

Thinking does not consist of rejecting God for no particular reason.

Of course it is NOT. You cannot point to a single fact, pot, or statue that shows otherwise.

We could not date a pot correctly. There is also the problem that the tectonic shifts and uplifting and volcanic activity destroyed or buried a lot of the evidence! Some things formerly on the surface are now perhaps miles under. Some things formerly miles under are not up here. Your little uniformitarian expectations for the past or a flood are frankly ridiculous.

"Jesus"? He never wrote a single thing down.... but he "told" You?

He told us all.

 

[Audie]

And, of course, every Republican supported this bill.

Is that really so?

 

[Audie]

I think you're right and that it means that a student may say "The answer is that according to the texbook and generally accepted research dinosaurs lived in this period, even though I personally don't believe it." This is far from allowing students to avoid learning the material. It lets them object to the material while still requiring that they learn it.

Did all the democrats vote against that?

 

[tas8831]

If I were teaching a class on logic or semantics

But you are not qualified to teach in any subject - especially not one that requires an actual knowledge of the subject matter.

and someone kept twisting the meanings of words then I'd have to mark it wrong even if they didn't understand that word meaning is always derived from context.

Like when some simpleton claimed that there is some "bifurcated" speech center in the "middle" of the brain?
Such simpleton's do not seem to understand that words have meanings, and in specific contexts, have specific meanings. Since the brain is a 3-dimensional object, claiming something to be in the middle of it cannot possibly be seen by any intelligent person to mean 'halfway down one side.' That is a child's way of thinking.

They can choose to deconstruct a lesson such that it makes no sense but they better get the "right" answer for the test.

And people pretending to understand anatomy and physiology had best actually understand them, rather than just making crap up and expecting everyone to bow down to their child-like renaming and incorrect spelling of things.
Basic competence dictates that one making claims about something like population genetics of brain anatomy should at the very least know what the basic parts of the brain are or general, well established genetics concepts actually are.

 

[tas8831]

I think you're right and that it means that a student may say "The answer is that according to the texbook and generally accepted research dinosaurs lived in this period, even though I personally don't believe it." This is far from allowing students to avoid learning the material. It lets them object to the material while still requiring that they learn it.

And when such objections are ridiculous?

 

[cladking]

Such simpleton's do not seem to understand that words have meanings, and in specific contexts, have specific meanings.

If that's the way anatomists think language works it's little wonder they can't piece together how consciousness, thought, and the mind works or even define the terms.

Maybe all they really need is to think about thought, language, epistemology, and metaphysics. If they ever found the soul in the brain they wouldn't recognize it any more than they recognize the nature of the meanings of words. But then, I doubt most people studying the brain think that every word has a single meaning.

Words have definitions and only context reveals the intended meaning. Unfortunately, definitions are just more words so every word has an infinite number of meanings. When ideas are relayed they become twisted and then unrecognizable because everyone is hearing something different. Everyone is deconstructing the words differently. Everyone has a different understanding of word meaning and a different estimation of the nature of reality itself. Many of us get so hung up in semantics we can't see that a "single" structure that is noncontinuous across the entire brain could still be said to be "bifurcated".

It is the nature of words and language that makes every question on a test partially right and partially wrong. Each observer estimates these balances independently and different rightnesses and wrongnesses can not be systematically quantified any more than you can add apples and oranges. The students' job is to guess what the teacher is thinking, not to remake the test in God's or his own image.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Did all the democrats vote against that?

The article only says that all of the Republicans supported this measure. Usually that means the Democrats will oppose whatever it is, however I do not know.

 

[Brickjectivity]

And when such objections are ridiculous?

Its not a gag order.

 

[tas8831]

If that's the way anatomists think language works it's little wonder they can't piece together how consciousness, thought, and the mind works or even define the terms.

You can't piece together even basic anatomy and physiology, so I am unsure why anyone should think your onions* on such things matter. Your goofy bafflegab is not a substitute for basic knowledge of brain anatomy.

Maybe all they really need is to think about thought, language, epistemology, and metaphysics.

Or maybe you should actually learn the basic anatomy before you pretend to have profound insights into neuroscience?

If they ever found the soul in the brain

What is your evidence that there is such a thing as a "soul", and where do you think it resides in the brain?
Did Phineas Gage's soul leak out when he was injured?

Keep in mind that 5 paragraphs of gibberish with no mention of brain parts will not be considered "evidence" of anything other than your lack of knowledge of the subject.

they wouldn't recognize it any more than they recognize the nature of the meanings of words.

We do recognize and understand the meanings of words.

That is how I knew you were ignorant when you claimed that there was a 'bifurcated' speech area in the 'middle of the brain.'

Ignorant.

But then, I doubt most people studying the brain think that every word has a single meaning.

When one is studying neuroanatomy, the words used to describe brain structures and functions DO have single meanings - that is how science works. If every word used in science is open to the interpretive whims of each person using them, there would chaos.

You've never studied anatomy at all, have you? There is a reason anatomists the world over use the same basic words for the same structures. Do you know why? Of course you don't.
When an anatomist describes one of the diagnostic features of a cervical vertebra as having a bifid spinous process, ALL competent anatomists understand what that means. It means this:

It does NOT mean "2, 3 5, or 20 parts, whatever, bro..." It means it is split in 2.

Because that is what the word means in this context.
And when the context is anatomy or neuroscience, the words used are to be interpreted IN THAT CONTEXT.

That 'bifurcated' might mean 'all over the place' to you (though that is not at all what bifurcated means in ANY context, that is just stupid), it has a specific meaning to people that actually know what they are talking about.


Why is such a simple concept so hard for you to grasp?

Words have definitions and only context reveals the intended meaning.

Right - so in the context of neuroscience, your goofy made-up definitions and 3rd-grade style spellings are irrelevant.
In neuroscience (and science in general) it only matters - and it is very important - that other neuroscientists understand and define terms the same way, regardless of who they are, where they are from, or whether they see themselves as having special insights into spirituality or not.

When some one says "five", everyone that speaks the language will know what is being referred to.
When a neuroscientist says "Broca's area", any competent neuroscientist or anatomist will know exactly what is being referred to. When some goofball writes "broccas area" , a neuroscientist will know that the person is out of their league.

Unfortunately, definitions are just more words so every word has an infinite number of meanings. When ideas are relayed they become twisted and then unrecognizable because everyone is hearing something different. Everyone is deconstructing the words differently. Everyone has a different understanding of word meaning and a different estimation of the nature of reality itself.

Speak for yourself - not everyone is a hyper-idiosyncratic pedantic egotist like you.

Many of us get so hung up in semantics we can't see that a "single" structure that is noncontinuous across the entire brain could still be said to be "bifurcated".

Nobody can see that:

bi·fur·cate
verb
past tense: bifurcated; past participle: bifurcated
/ˈbīfərˌkāt/

1. divide into two branches or forks.
   "just below Cairo the river bifurcates"

Origin​

early 17th century: from medieval Latin bifurcat- ‘divided into two forks’, from the verb bifurcare, from Latin bifurcus ‘two-forked’, from bi- ‘having two’ + furca ‘a fork’.


THAT ^^^^ is what the word means. Nobody claims it means split into more than 2, unless one says 'bifurcated repeatedly', or something like that, which you did not. You cannot just make things up when you've been shown to be wrong about something.
Or wait - can I do what you do?
Soul just means the sum total of brain activity - it has nothing to do with God or anything. Because words have different meanings in different contexts, and in the context of reality, this is what 'soul' means.
Thanks for the pro tip, bro!

Anyway...
Many of us (all of us with legitimate and appropriate educations) understand that "bifurcated" means 'having two forks', or 'split in two' and so we in the sciences are not so arrogant and egotistical and self-absorbed so as to think that their idiosyncratic word definitions and non-standard usage usurps the way in which the words are used, not to mention the actual definition of the word. We would call a brain structure that is noncontinuous across the entire brain, a brain structure that is noncontinuous across the entire brain - or have an actual terms that refers to this. We would not be so stupid as to call it "bifurcated" when there are more than 2 parts or areas, because we actually understand the words we use.
We also know that 'Broca's area' is not spelled 'broccas', because we actually have education and experience in the subject, as opposed to dopey musings and fever dreams wherein we are the greatest expert in the world on all subjects.

It is the nature of words and language that makes every question on a test partially right and partially wrong.

No it isn't.
But that is a hysterical way to try to explain your poor performance on exams.

Teacher: "Little Claddy, there are 50 stars on the US flag, not 'dickety.'"

Claddy: "But teacher, didn't you know that I am the world's greatest expert on language, and how words can mean whatever we want and nothing is real, and you cannot understand anything because words are fantasmagorical specters of superfluous bifurcated broccas? Therefore, when I wrote dickety I was right, you just don't understand how language works or that the pyramids are giant radio telescopes made from space dust by giants."

Teacher: "Go to the office, smart arse."​

Each observer estimates these balances independently and different rightnesses and wrongnesses can not be systematically quantified any more than you can add apples and oranges.

Nope.
You are just not as smart as you want people to think.

The students' job is to guess what the teacher is thinking, not to remake the test in God's or his own image.

No, the student's job is to learn and understand and use language in a conventional way.

Such a shame that your imaginary genius on all subjects is not recognized, not even on Graham Hancock's discussion forum.....


*started out as a typo, then I realized that the world's leading expert on language and neuroscience was right - words mean whatever our brains want them to, so...

 

[cladking]

Teacher: "Little Claddy, there are 50 stars on the US flag, not 'dickety.'"

I always had a knack, a gift really, for taking tests. It wasn't because I was smarter than everyone else and it wasn't because I knew more than everyone else. It was simply because I could get into the head of the test writer(s). When I didn't know the answer I could simply follow the pattern of answers.

But I never considered any opinion other than author of the test. I never aimed for the correct answer or the more correct answer but the one the teacher wanted. I even graded the test before turning it in since the odds of any given answer could be computed. I never counted an answer for zero points unless I was 100% sure it was correct. Normally a good solid answer scored .99

Kids shouldn't be taught that everything is black and white as they are now days. There is never a correct answer any more than there is ever an incorrect answer. They are all shades of grey. Using the term "bifurcated" in an unusual, incorrect really, way does not negate the idea that is represented in any sentence. Every sentence and every word still has meaning in context. Fixating on non-standard word usage is as nonsensical as fixating on typos or word meanings (semantics).

You live in a world very unlike mine where everything has sharp well defined borders and you understand everything you see. I see the anomalies and inconsistencies. I operate in the sphere of what I know but this is a tiny part of my reality. You're a specialist. You think there are right answers and wrong answers and the right answer is in the book if you just apply yourself to finding it. In some ways I'm more with the religious people than I am with you.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

It is not aware of it at least for the most part we would hope..

That's the way of myth, fantasy and delusions. Science does not need to worry about such things, until they can actually affect reality. So far? Nobody has even shown evidence for god interacting with reality.

Evidences for God are out of the little science box..

Yep-- so far out of the box, that these "evidences" are not, in fact, anything of the sort.

They are, 100% of the time, stories, myths, hearsay, rumors, gossip and whatnot.

More importantly I admit science has faith. Of course God's people should have faith, no news there..

Nope. No faith needed for science-- not how you mean 'faith'-- because in science? The evidence is available to anyone to verify.

Thinking does not consist of rejecting God for no particular reason..

I reject nothing-- god seems to be 100% at fault, here. Your "god" seems to play Special Favorites, picking and choosing to whom it "speaks directly" to-- and even worse? None of these special Spokes Persons are ... credible.

We could not date a pot correctly. There is also the problem that the tectonic shifts and uplifting and volcanic activity destroyed or buried a lot of the evidence! Some things formerly on the surface are now perhaps miles under. Some things formerly miles under are not up here. Your little uniformitarian expectations for the past or a flood are frankly ridiculous..

LMAO! Nope. There was no uniform world flooding. None. Nada. Not true. For a very large list of reasons why not.

One of the Primary Reasons? Chinese Civilization-- it's older than your bible, is unbroken, and contains no record of everyone dying in a mass flood.

Another excellent proof there was no flood? Australia Aborigines -- they have existed on that continent for at least 10,000 years-- well before any "global flood".

Another? Very delicate charcoal cave paintings in France and other places. Some of these are older than 15,000 years-- and were never flooded (water would destroy these).

Yet another? We have trees-- by counting the rings with careful core samples-- we know they are older than your flood myth.

And another? Ice layers in Antarctica. 100,000 years and older. Oh Snap! YOUR FLOOD NEVER HAPPENED.

END OF DISCUSSION.

He told us all.

WHERE? WHEN? Citation needed.