John VanSickle wrote:
> On 1/7/2011 1:05 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> I'm not sure why you have a job in IT instead of a job in teaching.
> 
> I taught computer literacy to fifteen-year-olds.

It's entirely possible to teach adults. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> On 10/01/2011 04:01 PM, John VanSickle wrote:
> 
>> Teaching requires, in addition to subject matter competency, skill in
>> classroom management and lesson planning and presentation. I was hired
>> having a CIS degree, but with no training in the other areas. If you
>> don't know what to watch for, the kids will go crazy. Toss in the kids
>> who weren't raised right (for whatever reason), and the situation
>> becomes unmanageable.
> 
> I would have thought the biggest problem is that kids don't want to 
> learn anything, don't give a damn what you're talking about, and will 
> basically go to any lengths to avoid being taught.
> 
> _That_ is why I'm not a teacher.

Don't teach kids. Teach adults.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Interestingly enough, all the "evidence" for ID is equally explained by 
> evolved outer-space aliens doing genetic engineering on Earth. Even *if* you 
> accept that evolution couldn't have produced the eye, or flagellum, or 
> whatever, you *still* don't get to say it must have been God, unless you 
> also rule out life anywhere else in the universe.

  That's also the major problem in all of the arguments for the existence
of God (such as the cosmological, transcendental and ontological ones):
Even if you accepted all the postulations of the arguments as valid (which
they aren't, but even if), they are simply giving the unknown origin of
the Universe the label "God", without telling anything at all about this
"God". It's just a meaningless label for the unknown.

  Further claiming that this "God" is the god of a modern religion is a
typical argument from ignorance.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
> > On 10/01/2011 04:01 PM, John VanSickle wrote:
> >
> >> Teaching requires, in addition to subject matter competency, skill in
> >> classroom management and lesson planning and presentation. I was hired
> >> having a CIS degree, but with no training in the other areas. If you
> >> don't know what to watch for, the kids will go crazy. Toss in the kids
> >> who weren't raised right (for whatever reason), and the situation
> >> becomes unmanageable.
> >
> > I would have thought the biggest problem is that kids don't want to
> > learn anything, don't give a damn what you're talking about, and will
> > basically go to any lengths to avoid being taught.
> >
> > _That_ is why I'm not a teacher.
>
> Don't teach kids. Teach adults.

wise suggestion.  Adults seeking education are eager to learn because most
likely were the types of kids who didn't want to learn back then and because of
that took quite a beating in life.  They are much more humble now.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > Be that as it may, I am against the teaching of life's origins on the 
> > public dime, because it is a matter of public debate,

> No it's not.

  Just read a funny anecdote of what happens when things are considered
"a matter of public debate":

"In Brockport, N.Y, in 1887, M.C. Flanders argued the case of a flat
Earth for three nights against two scientific gentlemen defending
sphericity. Five townsmen chosen as judges voted unanimously for a
flat Earth at the end."

  You can really come up with "proofs" of any argument you want. For example
in 1864 an author named William Carpenter published a book named "Theoretical
Astronomy Examined and Exposed - Proving the Earth not a Globe", and later
in 1885 another book named "A hundred proofs the Earth is not a Globe". He
was being serious.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:59:17 -0500, nemesis wrote:

>> > _That_ is why I'm not a teacher.
>>
>> Don't teach kids. Teach adults.
> 
> wise suggestion.  Adults seeking education are eager to learn because
> most likely were the types of kids who didn't want to learn back then
> and because of that took quite a beating in life.  They are much more
> humble now.

Unfortunately, it's adults who get to make all the important decisions, 
and many of those adults aren't much more humble - if anything, they're 
more obstinate in saying "yes, the world is flat, if it was round, [...]".

At least kids have open minds, for the most part.  It's only when they've 
been filled with the ignorance and hate of those who believe that their 
beliefs supersede actual knowledge and learning that their minds close.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> Be that as it may, I am against the teaching of life's origins on the 
>>> public dime, because it is a matter of public debate,
> 
>> No it's not.
> 
>   Just read a funny anecdote of what happens when things are considered
> "a matter of public debate":

Good story. However, even *if* it used to be a matter of public debate, the 
debate has occurred in public as specified by the laws of our country, and 
the result has been obtained that ID is a thinly-veiled attempt to introduce 
religion into the science class, which is also illegal in this country.

Just like it's a matter of public debate whether Fred should go to jail or 
not, right up until the jury comes back with a verdict.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> which is also illegal in this country.

  As if that had stopped it before... :P

  (I read somewhere that recently Barack Obama decided to announce the
National Day of Prayer, or something like that, even though shortly before
a judge had ruled it unconstitutional for the president to do so. I suppose
there were no consequences of this clear breaking of the 1st amendment...)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > > Be that as it may, I am against the teaching of life's origins on the
> > > public dime, because it is a matter of public debate,
>
> > No it's not.
>
>   Just read a funny anecdote of what happens when things are considered
> "a matter of public debate":
>
> "In Brockport, N.Y, in 1887, M.C. Flanders argued the case of a flat
> Earth for three nights against two scientific gentlemen defending
> sphericity. Five townsmen chosen as judges voted unanimously for a
> flat Earth at the end."
>
>   You can really come up with "proofs" of any argument you want. For example
> in 1864 an author named William Carpenter published a book named "Theoretical
> Astronomy Examined and Exposed - Proving the Earth not a Globe", and later
> in 1885 another book named "A hundred proofs the Earth is not a Globe". He
> was being serious.
>
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

fun anecdote, no doubt. :)

As far as I remember too, Mormoism started complete with witnesses and all
recognized legally.  First religion I think started with full legal backing...

That's the problem with layman thinking they can do better than centuries of
professionals dedicated to research.  They assume reality can be voted.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:20:18 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> They assume reality can be voted.

I blame American Idol. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message