Houston-area school board votes to remove 13 chapters from state-approved science textbooks, citing controversial topics

[Pommer]

You believe that I am wrong?

No, you’re free to believe anything you’d like, if it gets you through the day.
But we (all) do know that for about 200 years humanity has been inundating the atmosphere with megatons of carbon dioxide. We also know that CO2 in the atmosphere will tend to trap heat. (Methane as well @20 times the rate of heat retention though it’s half-life is only about 20 years).

You’re free to think that these things won’t matter and that even if the climate is changing, there nothing we can do.

 

[Always in His Presence]

I have seen science textbooks. And I have seen the depravity SOME individuals are willing to stoop to to give their ideological influence undue import. Sadly, people who should not have power are using that power inappropriately in trying to hide their children from scientific understanding.

You'll also note I was speaking in the generalities "classes" and not "the class".

In that case you are no more qualified than the other poster thanks - just clarifying. Sometimes strong opinion can come across as established fact. As we interact, I ask sometimes so I can better understand you as a poster. I appreciate your patience with me.

 

[rambot]

In that case you are no more qualified than the other poster thanks - just clarifying.

Well, I am a teacher so, I do in fact, have some background and qualifications in science education and scientific theory. I have seen more science textbooks than they have. I have taught more science lessons than they have. I have studied the epistomology of science. Yeah, come to think of it, I think I probably am more qualified than other posters to speak on this matter.

In fact, I'd argue I am more qualified to speak about scientific education broadly and how ideological school boards taint curriculum.


Though I THINK your point is, since I don't know the content of those particular chapters, I'm not qualified to address this particular situation. Is that more it?

 

[Always in His Presence]

Though I THINK your point is, since I don't know the content of those particular chapters, I'm not qualified to address this particular situation. Is that more it?

If you - or I - do not know the content of the particular chapters - how can we intelligently speak about the content we do not know? The best is to rely on hearsay (IOW what someone else said or wrote).

 

[essentialsaltes]

If you - or I - do not know the content of the particular chapters - how can we intelligently speak about the content we do not know?

We do know that:

The five textbooks in question also have been approved, in their entirety, by the State Board of Education.

We also know the Texas Board is highly influential with textbook publishers, and leans heavily 'conservative':

Texas: Republican-controlled school board votes against most climate textbooks​

U.S. history textbooks could soon be flavored heavily with Texas conservatism​

 

[rambot]

If you - or I - do not know the content of the particular chapters - how can we intelligently speak about the content we do not know? The best is to rely on hearsay (IOW what someone else said or wrote).

Weeell....
1) I'd say the BEST thing to rely on is being able to see the textbook ourselves.
2) This is a discussion thread on the internet. Given the number of conversations had by people who do NOT know the details of, say court cases of presidents, for example, I'd imagine this thread is simply another in a long line of threads where "unqualified people" (by your definition) discuss things in an online forum.
3) If we DO rely on hearsay, should we just listen to ANYONE'S opinion or should we be listening to experts?

 

[Zaha Torte]

No, you’re free to believe anything you’d like, if it gets you through the day.
But we (all) do know that for about 200 years humanity has been inundating the atmosphere with megatons of carbon dioxide. We also know that CO2 in the atmosphere will tend to trap heat. (Methane as well @20 times the rate of heat retention though it’s half-life is only about 20 years).

You’re free to think that these things won’t matter and that even if the climate is changing, there nothing we can do.

I do not know that - I believe that is a very widely circulated narrative though.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Exactly. What do you find lacking?

All of your responses have convinced me even more that I would not want you to teach this subject to children.

The condescension - the little jabs at my intellect and maybe even my morality - and all while never sharing a single fact.

I'm convinced you would treat any student the same way who had doubts or questions about all these statements you are making.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I do not know that - I believe that is a very widely circulated narrative though.

It is not a narrative, it is science. There are places on CF for discussing science.

 

[Zaha Torte]

It is not a narrative, it is science. There are places on CF for discussing science.

I have not seen a presentation of facts that left me convinced of those conclusions.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I have not seen a presentation of facts that left me convinced of those conclusions.

I did 30+ years ago. The scientific evidence of the drivers of modern climate change are well established and readily available. This is not the place for them to be discussed.

 

[rambot]

All of your responses have convinced me even more that I would not want you to teach this subject to children.

The condescension - the little jabs at my intellect and maybe even my morality - and all while never sharing a single fact.

I'm convinced you would treat any student the same way who had doubts or questions about all these statements you are making.

That's strange. I'm literally personality mirroring but you're right, it is a frustrating way of conversing.

I am asking you to list what particular aspect of the evidence of AGW you have difficulty with and you also, "never sharing a single fact".

And in regards to my capacity to teach, you'd be wrong there as well.

I LOVE informing my students and when they have doubts and questions I LOVE to help. I would posit though, that my junior high student also know that if they have HAVE questions and doubts, they need to be kind of specific. They can't just say "I disagree with finding equivalent Fractions!" because that's not a complaint. Nor is it a useful way to say "I don't understand equivalent fractions". There are MANY different things that can trip someone up.

I expect them to be able to pinpoint WHERE they have a problem with finding equivalent fractions; whether it's a strategy, or a concept they don't understand or a calculation that trips them up. Then I work with them to help them understand the problem.

THIS is why I was asking you to share WHERE you are struggling with AGW.

I have trouble understanding why I am obliged to share the things you already know and, as you say in post 13,
"I said that I would need to know how the information was presented before I could object to it being included in the book.

I said that I would not initially object to topics - like climate change - being presented in the book."


This makes me think that you already KNOW the information that is being provided in the book, but you don't know about HOW it is presented. So, if you already "know" the information, what is the purpose in me repeating it? I want to understand your "how" better.

 

[rambot]

I have not seen a presentation of facts that left me convinced of those conclusions.

That is likely not the fault of the evidence.

 

[Zaha Torte]

That's strange. I'm literally personality mirroring but you're right, it is a frustrating way of conversing.

I am asking you to list what particular aspect of the evidence of AGW you have difficulty with and you also, "never sharing a single fact".

And in regards to my capacity to teach, you'd be wrong there as well.

I LOVE informing my students and when they have doubts and questions I LOVE to help. I would posit though, that my junior high student also know that if they have HAVE questions and doubts, they need to be kind of specific. They can't just say "I disagree with finding equivalent Fractions!" because that's not a complaint. Nor is it a useful way to say "I don't understand equivalent fractions". There are MANY different things that can trip someone up.

I expect them to be able to pinpoint WHERE they have a problem with finding equivalent fractions; whether it's a strategy, or a concept they don't understand or a calculation that trips them up. Then I work with them to help them understand the problem.

THIS is why I was asking you to share WHERE you are struggling with AGW.

I have trouble understanding why I am obliged to share the things you already know and, as you say in post 13,
"I said that I would need to know how the information was presented before I could object to it being included in the book.

I said that I would not initially object to topics - like climate change - being presented in the book."


This makes me think that you already KNOW the information that is being provided in the book, but you don't know about HOW it is presented. So, if you already "know" the information, what is the purpose in me repeating it? I want to understand your "how" better.

From what I understand - you made the claim that climate change is imminent threat that was caused by the choices made by human beings.

I then asked you why you believed that - which would have been your opportunity to "pinpoint" the facts that led you to that conclusion.

Instead - you began with the condescension - when you said, "I don't" (a very Faucie-esque "I am the Science" moment).

Then I asked why you were passing up the opportunity to share the evidence that led you to your conclusion - and instead of using the opportunity to share your evidence you used it to attack my integrity - claiming that I must already know what you would share yet I decided to dismiss it.

Then you repeated your initial claim - citing some massive sea of evidence yet you still can't seem to "pinpoint" a single piece of.

Again - I asked you to share an example - a single one - and you didn't.

I would contend that since you made the initial claim that the onus is upon you to provide your evidence in support of your claim.

You would do this to one of your students who is asking you to share this information with them? Just - not do it?

 

[Zaha Torte]

That is likely not the fault of the evidence.

The evidence that you keep not sharing?

 

[Always in His Presence]

3) If we DO rely on hearsay, should we just listen to ANYONE'S opinion or should we be listening to experts?

Listen to those first person familiar with the issue from pro and con - then make comments looking at both sides - to me, that would be a balanced approach

 

[rambot]

From what I understand - you made the claim that climate change is imminent threat that was caused by the choices made by human beings.

I then asked you why you believed that - which would have been your opportunity to "pinpoint" the facts that led you to that conclusion. Instead - you began with the condescension - when you said, "I don't" (a very Faucie-esque "I am the Science" moment).

There's nothing condescending in that. You chose the word "believe". I don't "believe". I answered you specifically.

I know. I assumed you specifically chose the word "believe" in an attempt to the copious amounts of data and research that supports the theory.

Then I asked why you were passing up the opportunity to share the evidence that led you to your conclusion - and instead of using the opportunity to share your evidence you used it to attack my integrity - claiming that I must already know what you would share yet I decided to dismiss it.

That's not attacking your integrity. I explained how I understood your post. If I misunderstood your post, please feel free to correct me; I recognize nobody (myself included) always represents themselves in type how they mean to.

Then you repeated your initial claim - citing some massive sea of evidence yet you still can't seem to "pinpoint" a single piece of.

Again - I asked you to share an example - a single one - and you didn't.

I would contend that since you made the initial claim that the onus is upon you to provide your evidence in support of your claim.

I am of the opinion that you made the initial claim and that you could explain yourself in greater detail.

You would do this to one of your students who is asking you to share this information with them? Just - not do it?

Did you read my last post? I explained that I need to FIRST understand what they don't know. Otherwise me teaching them is beating my head against a brick wall.

But let's try some evidence then.

What, in this experiment do you take umbrage with?

 

[rambot]

Listen to those first person familiar with the issue from pro and con - then make comments looking at both sides - to me, that would be a balanced approach

Really? In all circumstances?

 

[Always in His Presence]

Really? In all circumstances?

In this particular instance - yes, that is my opinion.

 

[Gene2memE]

I have not seen a presentation of facts that left me convinced of those conclusions.

Try this

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiJ7JSHyJCGAxVBxzgGHULiB14QFnoECA8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0IERg1bK7Gui1NUZ_2h-W4