Metsfanmax wrote:You're being specific regarding a particular skill that should be taught. I'm not. If a high school education does not give one the life skills necessary to figure out how to think about taxes, then it should be fixed -- but that doesn't mean teaching people in-depth about the tax system. It means teaching people more about basic math, economics and finances, and allowing them to put the pieces together on their own. SImilarly, I'm not advocating teaching students in-depth material about climate change; I'm advocating giving them the tools necessary to understand the more sophisticated material they'll encounter in their adult lives. There are plenty of benefits to teaching students more about risk and uncertainty; climate change is one of many.
You're also proving my point (and no, I'm not calling you stupid, nor do I think you're stupid by any means).
The tax system has little to do with basic math, economics, or finances. It has more to do with accounting (which is based upon basic math and basic finances) and the more specialized financial accounting and the much more specialized tax accounting. The lack of education about taxes has led to widely held beliefs by Americans (and others), including government-types, believing articles lambasting multinational corporations for "not paying taxes" which is either a blatant lie or extreme ignorance (don't write about something you don't know anything about). The lack of education about taxes has led to the widely held belief that X% of Americans don't pay taxes (I've seen X be as high as 51%). Both of these ignorant statements lead to calls for policy changes that will end up hurting the people that argue in favor of them.
I find it no different than people incorrectly (or disingenuously) interpreting climate change models, except, I suppose, we could die from climate change; can't really die from taxes.
My point is only that people cannot understand climate models without understanding risk or uncertainty. Your argument is that understanding risk and uncertainty is no guarantee that they'll understand the more complicated concept. This is true. But there's a better probability that they will if they understand probability to begin with.
As you point out, educating people about the tax system doesn't really require extra skills aside from what one learns in high school; it requires simply correcting the information that people have, and getting them to actually figure out the system. I am arguing that no matter how much information you give people on climate change, they can't understand the concept of climate forecasting without having the basic concepts down first.
Metsfanmax wrote:You're being specific regarding a particular skill that should be taught. I'm not. If a high school education does not give one the life skills necessary to figure out how to think about taxes, then it should be fixed -- but that doesn't mean teaching people in-depth about the tax system. It means teaching people more about basic math, economics and finances, and allowing them to put the pieces together on their own. SImilarly, I'm not advocating teaching students in-depth material about climate change; I'm advocating giving them the tools necessary to understand the more sophisticated material they'll encounter in their adult lives. There are plenty of benefits to teaching students more about risk and uncertainty; climate change is one of many.
You're also proving my point (and no, I'm not calling you stupid, nor do I think you're stupid by any means).
The tax system has little to do with basic math, economics, or finances. It has more to do with accounting (which is based upon basic math and basic finances) and the more specialized financial accounting and the much more specialized tax accounting. The lack of education about taxes has led to widely held beliefs by Americans (and others), including government-types, believing articles lambasting multinational corporations for "not paying taxes" which is either a blatant lie or extreme ignorance (don't write about something you don't know anything about). The lack of education about taxes has led to the widely held belief that X% of Americans don't pay taxes (I've seen X be as high as 51%). Both of these ignorant statements lead to calls for policy changes that will end up hurting the people that argue in favor of them.
I find it no different than people incorrectly (or disingenuously) interpreting climate change models, except, I suppose, we could die from climate change; can't really die from taxes.
My point is only that people cannot understand climate models without understanding risk or uncertainty. Your argument is that understanding risk and uncertainty is no guarantee that they'll understand the more complicated concept. This is true. But there's a better probability that they will if they understand probability to begin with.
As you point out, educating people about the tax system doesn't really require extra skills aside from what one learns in high school; it requires simply correcting the information that people have, and getting them to actually figure out the system. I am arguing that no matter how much information you give people on climate change, they can't understand the concept of climate forecasting without having the basic concepts down first.
I was merely stating how misunderstanding or not knowing basic things can negatively effect people. I can see how that was confusing.
There is a hierarchy here (for lack of a better word). There are basic things that people should understand (e.g. statistics, probabilities, the tax system, the political/government system), but don't for whatever reason (either not being subject to these items in school or not retaining that information from school). So we have that. The second question is whether it is realistic for people to either learn or learn and retain (and use) that basic information as adults on a day-to-day basis. I don't think it's realistic because people prioritize other things (like watching TV) apart from retaining basic knowledge to be able to understand what should be important issues to them. Instead those people rely on others (who may have agendas) to tell them what to think. I think it's potentially dangerous and bad, but whatevs!
thegreekdog wrote:There is a hierarchy here (for lack of a better word). There are basic things that people should understand (e.g. statistics, probabilities, the tax system, the political/government system), but don't for whatever reason (either not being subject to these items in school or not retaining that information from school). So we have that.
I think there's a good argument that an education system is not doing a good job if its students don't understand how the tax system works. However, the point I'm making here is that you can have an economics or finance class in high school to address that, but you can't make that a core part of the curriculum of other classes. Concepts like statistics and logical reasoning should be integrated into the backbone of the core curriculum classes. These are basic ideas that graduates should understand because they encounter risk and uncertainty every day.
The second question is whether it is realistic for people to either learn or learn and retain (and use) that basic information as adults on a day-to-day basis. I don't think it's realistic because people prioritize other things (like watching TV) apart from retaining basic knowledge to be able to understand what should be important issues to them. Instead those people rely on others (who may have agendas) to tell them what to think. I think it's potentially dangerous and bad, but whatevs!
For certain topics there's a nice self-fulfilling cycle. If you teach students the language of uncertainty or the language of scientific reasoning, they know to see it when they watch TV or read the news. If you never teach them that, it can never be reinforced because they don't know where to look.
Metsfanmax wrote:For certain topics there's a nice self-fulfilling cycle. If you teach students the language of uncertainty or the language of scientific reasoning, they know to see it when they watch TV or read the news. If you never teach them that, it can never be reinforced because they don't know where to look.
I agree with this.
At what point in history did it become impossible for:
(a) a person to know pretty much everything (b) a person to know/understand all "building blocks"
There don't seem to be many philosopher/politician/scientist types in the vein of some of those ancient Greeks.
Metsfanmax wrote:For certain topics there's a nice self-fulfilling cycle. If you teach students the language of uncertainty or the language of scientific reasoning, they know to see it when they watch TV or read the news. If you never teach them that, it can never be reinforced because they don't know where to look.
I agree with this.
At what point in history did it become impossible for:
(a) a person to know pretty much everything (b) a person to know/understand all "building blocks"
There don't seem to be many philosopher/politician/scientist types in the vein of some of those ancient Greeks.
thegreekdog wrote:A high school student with or without a job will indirectly pay all kinds of different corporate and personal and transactional taxes.
Also, thanks 2dimes, I rest my case.
Much like me picking up a chip bag off my lawn does not equal the person who left it there recycling.
I'm not certain someone supporting me paying tax equals me paying tax but you're welcome.
Metsfanmax wrote:For certain topics there's a nice self-fulfilling cycle. If you teach students the language of uncertainty or the language of scientific reasoning, they know to see it when they watch TV or read the news. If you never teach them that, it can never be reinforced because they don't know where to look.
I agree with this.
At what point in history did it become impossible for:
(a) a person to know pretty much everything (b) a person to know/understand all "building blocks"
There don't seem to be many philosopher/politician/scientist types in the vein of some of those ancient Greeks.
I like to think that if I didn't work 15 hours a day I would be able to establish a good knowledge base in a lot of different things. That also makes me think about wealthy people who don't really have to work (i.e. they have a lot of free time on their hands). Those are the people that could be polymaths if anyone can.
Sorry to continue to ramble, but as another example - the breadth and depth of my history knowledge was pretty impressive during college. I lost that almost half a year into law school. Just wasn't enough room anymore. When I retire, I'm going to go back and take college classes.
Metsfanmax wrote:For certain topics there's a nice self-fulfilling cycle. If you teach students the language of uncertainty or the language of scientific reasoning, they know to see it when they watch TV or read the news. If you never teach them that, it can never be reinforced because they don't know where to look.
I agree with this.
At what point in history did it become impossible for:
(a) a person to know pretty much everything (b) a person to know/understand all "building blocks"
There don't seem to be many philosopher/politician/scientist types in the vein of some of those ancient Greeks.
I like to think that if I didn't work 15 hours a day I would be able to establish a good knowledge base in a lot of different things. That also makes me think about wealthy people who don't really have to work (i.e. they have a lot of free time on their hands). Those are the people that could be polymaths if anyone can.
Sorry to continue to ramble, but as another example - the breadth and depth of my history knowledge was pretty impressive during college. I lost that almost half a year into law school. Just wasn't enough room anymore. When I retire, I'm going to go back and take college classes.
You'll be that "older guy". the non-traditional student everybody hates for screwing up the grading curve.
It's a good con the Republicans have going: intentionally shift the name of the phenomenon to change public opinion, and then blame the scientists for changing the name of the phenomenon.
or rather, put very simply, the reality that the entire time phd's were going on and on and on and on about global warming, the globe was actually cooling. Look at the videos still being put out about the north pole melting, even though there was record shelf growth this year....the sad result is more people will be impacted by this video than the truth.
Phatscotty wrote:or rather, put very simply, the reality that the entire time phd's were going on and on and on and on about global warming, the globe was actually cooling. Look at the videos still being put out about the north pole melting, even though there was record shelf growth this year....the sad result is more people will be impacted by this video than the truth.
I think you might be confusing "North Pole" with "South Pole," "shelf" with "sea ice," and "narrow perspective to achieve a political end" with "science."
Maybe someday you will understand the words you use, and we could take you seriously for longer than a couple seconds.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Phatscotty wrote:or rather, put very simply, the reality that the entire time phd's were going on and on and on and on about global warming, the globe was actually cooling. Look at the videos still being put out about the north pole melting, even though there was record shelf growth this year....the sad result is more people will be impacted by this video than the truth.
thegreekdog wrote:There don't seem to be many philosopher/politician/scientist types in the vein of some of those ancient Greeks.
OK, I promise that I won't laugh out loud over that statement. But the Greek philosophers weren't interested in the observations / experiments science needs to flourish as they thought it was beneath them.
thegreekdog wrote:There don't seem to be many philosopher/politician/scientist types in the vein of some of those ancient Greeks.
OK, I promise that I won't laugh out loud over that statement. But the Greek philosophers weren't interested in the observations / experiments science needs to flourish as they thought it was beneath them.
The People's Liberation Army think that Ice Age was an attempt by Am*rica (via its propaganda machine, Hollywood) to push the Am*rican global warming agenda onto the rest of the world.
What message is Am*rica trying to send to the world about global warming and why?
Government needs problems in order to maintain and justify their authority.
Global warming is a synergetic marketing scheme that allows government to gain greater control over our resources, energy, food and weather. None of these will solve the problem, nor are they intended to. Real solutions to the proposed problem would lessen government control and we will not see that.
The UN will need a comprehensive approach to battle climate change, they will chirp and through use of HAARP, conditioning through media, tilted scientific research and use of instigators in forums and rallies, it will be achieved. But what we will achieve is less freedom, not a greater ability to be independent, which is the real solution to both climate change and government amalgamation. I have posted a wide variety of solutions to the proposed problem, all of which are ignored as we go through a shadow play of puppetry that will in the end allow their real end to be attained.
Metsfanmax Killing a human should not be worse than killing a pig.
It never ceases to amaze me just how far people will go to defend their core beliefs.
Just tell me this global warming people. Were all the 95% of scientists wrong in calling it global warming when the earth was actually cooling? More like 95% of scientists were working with inaccurate information.
Thank God the Nazi's did not force everyone to believe their bs 'results' 15 years ago.
Phatscotty wrote:Just tell me this global warming people. Were all the 95% of scientists wrong in calling it global warming when the earth was actually cooling? More like 95% of scientists were working with inaccurate information.
Thank God the Nazi's did not force everyone to believe their bs 'results' 15 years ago.
The Earth, overall is NOT cooling. Scientist, real ones, are all in full agreement over that. The only disputers are those who wish to ignore hard work needed to correct things.
Phatscotty wrote:Just tell me this global warming people. Were all the 95% of scientists wrong in calling it global warming when the earth was actually cooling? More like 95% of scientists were working with inaccurate information.
Thank God the Nazi's did not force everyone to believe their bs 'results' 15 years ago.
The Earth, overall is NOT cooling. Scientist, real ones, are all in full agreement over that. The only disputers are those who wish to ignore hard work needed to correct things.
Actually, they aren't in agreement, but I'm guessing any scientist who does not agree with you is not a 'real' scientist. This really is some Nazi shit.
If the globe is warming/not cooling, then why did all the 'real' scientists stop calling it global warming and start calling it climate change?
Because Anthony Watt wanted to manufacture controversy, and Obama wanted to unilaterally shift the focus of scientific efforts to controlling the weather.
Or it's a phrase that is more inclusive of other effects murdering the carbon cycle might create, such as local and large scale weather changes, precipitation levels, or whatever. I dunno.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Phatscotty wrote:Just tell me this global warming people. Were all the 95% of scientists wrong in calling it global warming when the earth was actually cooling? More like 95% of scientists were working with inaccurate information.
Thank God the Nazi's did not force everyone to believe their bs 'results' 15 years ago.
I wish you were on TV....like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman.
It would be so fun to watch.
I'm Spanking Monkey now....err...I mean I'm a Spanking Monkey now...that shoots milk Too much. I know.
Phatscotty wrote:Just tell me this global warming people. Were all the 95% of scientists wrong in calling it global warming when the earth was actually cooling? More like 95% of scientists were working with inaccurate information.
Thank God the Nazi's did not force everyone to believe their bs 'results' 15 years ago.
The Earth, overall is NOT cooling. Scientist, real ones, are all in full agreement over that. The only disputers are those who wish to ignore hard work needed to correct things.
Actually, they aren't in agreement, but I'm guessing any scientist who does not agree with you is not a 'real' scientist. This really is some Nazi shit.
If the globe is warming/not cooling, then why did all the 'real' scientists stop calling it global warming and start calling it climate change?
Please explain the Nazi connection. It will be fun. I promise to read every word of it.
I'm Spanking Monkey now....err...I mean I'm a Spanking Monkey now...that shoots milk Too much. I know.
