Republicans vs. Sex Ed, round XXX

[Arrian]

Real disagreement. Meaning what, exactly?

Disagreement between qualified people basing their arguments on facts?

-Arrian

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Arrian
Real disagreement. Meaning what, exactly?

Disagreement between qualified people basing their arguments on facts?

-Arrian

Yeah.

Jon Miller

[Arrian]

And the two people who were pushed into this conference via political pressure are qualified and base their arguments on facts? It's possible, of course, but that's what peer review is for, isn't it?? I mean, if they had wished to participate they could have gone throught he process. Instead, these people were just stuffed into the conference (and a qualified guy was yanked out) b/c a politician didn't like the sound of the conference and didn't like what he figured would be the conclusion.

-Arrian

[Jon Miller]

Huh? Did you read my posts?

I said that these guys don't sound like the right ones to be put in. But he is a politician, not a scientist.

It is far more important for scientists to include criticism when they are dealing with political subjects than when they are not dealing with political subjects...

And it sure sounded to me like the conference didn't include those skeptical to the viewpoints of the panel leader (now maybe that is the case, that there is no scientist who argues the opposing position). It also sounds like the conclusion is known ahead of time also..

I am just very skeptical of scientists preaching to the choir, whether it is peer reviewed or not..

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

In other words, especially since it is a political subject, the organizer should have made sure to include critical (to his position) viewpoints. If all the scientists are in agreement with his position (there is no disagreement), than the panel is pretty meaningless... (and having one 'quack' on it would hurt nothing, because no one would listen to him)

I think that this is an example of either poor science, or poor scientific communication with the nonscience public. Which is considerably more noteworthy, and more faultworthy, then a politicians bumbling in science (which is to be expected).

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

I am glad that currently there is little political interest in physics..

However, if there was, we would get more funding.

Jon Miler

[Arrian]

Fair enough, you did indeed say that.

Obviously neither of us knows if pro-abstinence-only types tried to get in on this conference and were denied during the peer review process. It *does* sound like the original lineup was going to be full of anti-A.O. types. Of course, since I think A.O. (emphasis on the "O" part, mind you!) education is mind-bogglingly stupid, that a bunch of scientists would all present papers condemning it doesn't surpise me.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I am glad that currently there is little political interest in physics..

However, if there was, we would get more funding.

Jon Miler

Heh. Just you wait until one of you guys stumbles on something that definitively disproves some key tennant of a religion.

-Arrian

[Jon Miller]

I think that AO is appropriate pre highschool (or at the most liberal, pre junior high).

But not in highschool. But as I said, these scientists need to realise that they are communicating with politicans.. and so the standards for how serious the criticism needs to be to be included drop...

Jon Miller

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
In other words, especially since it is a political subject, the organizer should have made sure to include critical (to his position) viewpoints. If all the scientists are in agreement with his position (there is no disagreement), than the panel is pretty meaningless... (and having one 'quack' on it would hurt nothing, because no one would listen to him)

I think that this is an example of either poor science, or poor scientific communication with the nonscience public. Which is considerably more noteworthy, and more faultworthy, then a politicians bumbling in science (which is to be expected).

Jon Miller

I suppose that having one "quack" might've given the conference a more "balanced" look and thus prevented the meddling. But of course the meddling resulted in... the addition of two quacks. I guess one quack is better than two, but... basically the same result.

Just because a subject is "political" doesn't mean that a viewpoint that has no basis in science should be pandered to at a scientific conference.

-Arrian

[Pekka]

So Dis, after you had sex with your teacher in that class, did he give you an A or B?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I think that AO is appropriate pre highschool (or at the most liberal, pre junior high).

But not in highschool. But as I said, these scientists need to realise that they are communicating with politicans.. and so the standards for how serious the criticism needs to be to be included drop...

Jon Miller

I'm kinda freaked out by the idea of middleschoolers having sex too. Damn that's early.

Seems to me, though, that if they are they should have the info that will help prevent STDs and such (which includes, but is not limited to, abstinence). Their parents can deal with the morality or lack thereof of having sex when you're 12.

-Arrian

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Arrian


Heh. Just you wait until one of you guys stumbles on something that definitively disproves some key tennant of a religion.

-Arrian

The biggest thing, and closest thing, that I could ever see to doing that (in physics) is the Big Bang, and the following cosmological theories.

But they are all too far out from casual understanding, and too easily made agreeable to religious ideas, for it ever to be an issue.

Modern theistic religions just don't deal with physics...

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Arrian


I'm kinda freaked out by the idea of middleschoolers having sex too. Damn that's early.

Seems to me, though, that if they are they should have the info that will help prevent STDs and such (which includes, but is not limited to, abstinence). Their parents can deal with the morality or lack thereof of having sex when you're 12.

-Arrian

I think that the government should have a hard line of no sex before you are 12. If it ever happens than something is wrong.

Older than 12 is often just hormones..

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Arrian


I suppose that having one "quack" might've given the conference a more "balanced" look and thus prevented the meddling. But of course the meddling resulted in... the addition of two quacks. I guess one quack is better than two, but... basically the same result.

Just because a subject is "political" doesn't mean that a viewpoint that has no basis in science should be pandered to at a scientific conference.

-Arrian

But if it isn't meaningful because everyone agrees.. what is it's purpose really? What point, then, about whether a quack is involved or not..?

Also, from what I have seen, there is generally a little less agreement than science displays (scientists are beleivers also...). This is well and good (it allows for people to push in one direction or another), but while in standard science a group that has only 10% of experts is generally ignored.. in a more 'political' discussion where they are the critics, they should be included.

Jon Miller