Do Most Atheists Know that science..... Part 2

[bokonon]

(OT. I appologise)

I fail to understand the American education system. How on earth are people allowed into university without a grasp of the basics? A friend of mine in America is having to take science and english courses despite being an Advertising/PR student.

For the most part, people aren't allowed into university without a grasp of the basics. Some bible colleges may have more lax admissions standards (the aforementioned Bob Jones and Oral Roberts, for example), but most universities have requirements for aptitude tests and grades that insure that most students enter with a basic foundation of knowledge.

At the same time, they recognize that they're admitting students from all over the country, and individual teachers implementing the policies of local administrations and school boards, who are operating under educational policies set by 50 individual states, means that there will be some variation in the instruction received by individual students (even ignoring student aptitude and "home schooling" variables).

I expect the university is requiring your friend to take science classes because they're trying to turn out "well-rounded" Advertising/PR students. Usually, English classes can be waived by passing an aptitude test, so either your friend didn't take or pass that test, or the English classes are required for his major, and are presumably covering material that would not generally be taught in elementary and high schools.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

For the most part, people aren't allowed into university without a grasp of the basics. Some bible colleges may have more lax admissions standards (the aforementioned Bob Jones and Oral Roberts, for example), but most universities have requirements for aptitude tests and grades that insure that most students enter with a basic foundation of knowledge.

At the same time, they recognize that they're admitting students from all over the country, and individual teachers implementing the policies of local administrations and school boards, who are operating under educational policies set by 50 individual states, means that there will be some variation in the instruction received by individual students (even ignoring student aptitude and "home schooling" variables).

I expect the university is requiring your friend to take science classes because they're trying to turn out "well-rounded" Advertising/PR students. Usually, English classes can be waived by passing an aptitude test, so either your friend didn't take or pass that test, or the English classes are required for his major, and are presumably covering material that would not generally be taught in elementary and high schools.

Well there was no apptitude test that can waive the requirement, she says. Indeed, the only way to avoid doing English basic courses was to take Advanced Placement courses at high school, same with Maths because this counts as enough credits. She DID take Advanced Placement Calculus and Statistics and therefore did not have to do the basic Maths courses. Due to the Gordon Rule (she's in Miami) the exam taken only grades WHERE you enter into the Maths/English/Science section of the degree.

However, the issue I have here is fairly irrelevant to what she specifically did.

My point is that these courses may be to turn out "well rounded" students, an admirable aim, but why are the steps for this not taken earlier? Surely University is there to set someone up as a specialist, and school is there to give a well rounded education?

 

[godless dave]

(OT. I appologise)

I fail to understand the American education system. How on earth are people allowed into university without a grasp of the basics? A friend of mine in America is having to take science and english courses despite being an Advertising/PR student.

Why on earth are these things not covered earlier in the school process? Why must it wait until University for there to be a class in basic grammar?

They usually are covered earlier in the school process. But many students don't pay attention or do the work. If the teacher fails them, their parents complain to the principal, who tells the teacher to pass them to get these damn parents of her back. Low grades make the school look bad and make parents complain, so there is a lot of pressure to give good grades to poor students.

 

[Prometheus]

Well there was no apptitude test that can waive the requirement, she says. Indeed, the only way to avoid doing English basic courses was to take Advanced Placement courses at high school, same with Maths because this counts as enough credits. She DID take Advanced Placement Calculus and Statistics and therefore did not have to do the basic Maths courses. Due to the Gordon Rule (she's in Miami) the exam taken only grades WHERE you enter into the Maths/English/Science section of the degree.

However, the issue I have here is fairly irrelevant to what she specifically did.

My point is that these courses may be to turn out "well rounded" students, an admirable aim, but why are the steps for this not taken earlier? Surely University is there to set someone up as a specialist, and school is there to give a well rounded education?

Most colleges will accept a CLEP exam to fulfill such requirements, but this is not well advertised, and often the colleges don't want to tell students about this option.

 

[DOC]

Posted by DOC
No, I didn't realize there was no "empty space" before the theorized Big Bang until I read it in the book "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist".

Posted by DOC
Actually, I have a college degree, and did take a physics course in high school and an astronomy course in college.

Thank you for these honest admissions Doc. I realise they must have been embarrassing for you to make.

Not embarrassing at all because I know without a doubt that I know more about the "theory" of "no empty space before the BB" than 99% of Americans... They might teach more about the BB "theory" now but they didn't teach anything about it in those 2 courses I mentioned above that I took in the 70s.

But once, again this thread is not about me. Although one wouldn't know it by reading a lot of the posts. I realize posts about me personally will continue and waste a lot of time. But I've just learned to accept that.

 

[Tanstaafl]

DOC, when you "know" something "without a doubt", without evidence, that should be your first clue that you're wrong.

 

[DOC]

I recall reading about the big bang and the concept of space back at school in the 60s. When decade did you go school DOC, the 1860s?

Yes, and you might be a PhD in Physics for all we know.

What percentage of Americans alive today do you believe know that according to the BB theory there wasn't any "space" in existence before the BB?

Others can give their opinion on the my question also.

 

[joobz]

Not embarrassing at all because I know without a doubt that I know more about the "theory" of "no empty space before the BB" than 99% of Americans...

Yeah! We're going to play the make stuff up with numbers game.

Did you know that chickens are 5.3 times more likely to cheese doodle?

Or that 54.2% of umbrellas are 42% more volumnious than ostriches?

 

[DOC]

DOC, when you "know" something "without a doubt", without evidence, that should be your first clue that you're wrong.

What's your opinion to the question in post 887?

 

[DOC]

Yeah! We're going to play the make stuff up with numbers game.

Did you know that chickens are 5.3 times more likely to cheese doodle?

Or that 54.2% of umbrellas are 42% more volumnious than ostriches?

Sounds like you don't want to give an honest estimate to my simple question in post 887?

 

[Tanstaafl]

What's your opinion to the question in post 887?

I don't know.

That's what honest people say when they have no data.

 

[Mashuna]

Not embarrassing at all because I know without a doubt that I know more about the "theory" of "no empty space before the BB" than 99% of Americans...

Knowing things without a doubt could be the root of your problems, Doc.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

But once, again this thread is not about me. Although one wouldn't know it by reading a lot of the posts. I realize posts about me personally will continue and waste a lot of time. But I've just learned to accept that.

If you don’t want this thread to be about you, maybe you should first learn the theory you want to discuss. Then we wouldn’t have to spend all this time fruitlessly trying to get you to understand it.


P.S. Here's a chance to redeem yourself. "...according to the BB theory there wasn't any "space" in existence before the BB?" Please elaborate where the BB theory says anything about "before" the BB, or what part of it stipulates the non-existence of space at some point.

 

[joobz]

Sounds like you don't want to give an honest estimate to my simple question in post 887?

An Honest estimate...
Isn't that a vastly different thing then a saying " know without a doubt..."?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Yes, and you might be a PhD in Physics for all we know.

What percentage of Americans alive today do you believe know that according to the BB theory there wasn't any "space" in existence before the BB?

Others can give their opinion on the my question also.

What does it matter DOC? What percentage of Americans can actually program a computer? What percentage can perform heart surgery? What percentage know that Cepheid variables are used to measure interstellar distances? What percentage have heard of ATP and its role in energy transfer in cells? Seriously, what is your point?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Yeah! We're going to play the make stuff up with numbers game.

Did you know that chickens are 5.3 times more likely to cheese doodle?

Or that 54.2% of umbrellas are 42% more volumnious than ostriches?

2+3=raccoon!

 

[bokonon]

Seriously, what is your point?

I believe his "point," though he scrupulously avoids stating it, is that science makes some incredible claims. He thinks it's unfair that people accept the incredible claims which science makes (i.e., all life has a common origin), while ridiculing the incredible claims made by his favorite religious book (i.e., "day" and "night" and "okra" existed before "sun" and "moon" and "stars"). He seems steadfastly oblivious to the notion of "evidence" as a possible justification for accepting one set of incredible claims while rejecting another. His PFA "90%" statistic, and request for others to add their own PFA stats to this thread suggest that, in his mind, guesses are just as good as any other kind of evidence.

 

[Lothian]

Yes, and you might be a PhD in Physics for all we know.

What percentage of Americans alive today do you believe know that according to the BB theory there wasn't any "space" in existence before the BB?

Others can give their opinion on the my question also.

I would guess that 99% of Americans alive today with a college degree, who took a physics course in high school and an astronomy course in college would know that according to the BB theory there wasn't any "space" in existence before the BB?. 1% are dipsticks.

 

[Hokulele]

I believe his "point," though he scrupulously avoids stating it, is that science makes some incredible claims. He thinks it's unfair that people accept the incredible claims which science makes (i.e., all life has a common origin), while ridiculing the incredible claims made by his favorite religious book (i.e., "day" and "night" and "okra" existed before "sun" and "moon" and "stars"). He seems steadfastly oblivious to the notion of "evidence" as a possible justification for accepting one set of incredible claims while rejecting another. His PFA "90%" statistic, and request for others to add their own PFA stats to this thread suggest that, in his mind, guesses are just as good as any other kind of evidence.

Bingo.

 

[godless dave]

They might teach more about the BB "theory" now but they didn't teach anything about it in those 2 courses I mentioned above that I took in the 70s.

That's why I said you should get your tuition money back. Either you went to a crappy college or you missed a couple classes.