AGW indoctrination of LSU students

[Furcifer]

He invited nothing. Universities are the place for dealing with controversy and thinking through problems. Watch the entire video. The professor was challenging the students, ALL of the students, and his words were manipulated by dishonest political hacks.

I've watched the entire video, what I haven't watched is the edited one, which apparently was what you saw. Instead maybe you should watch the entire lecture? Just sayin.

If universities are now barred from touching on controversial subjects for fear of enraging the ignorant, our society will be far worse off than it already is.

Wow, that's some strawman.

Nobody is advocating "barring" this guy. But you keep up the fight for society if that's what you think this is about.

If people want to maintain their uneducated stances, keeping their head in the sand so as not to be bothered by information and knowledge, they probably shouldn't go to a university.

You're just grand standing here.

No one "invites" cruel manipulations of their words.

What's cruel? When I think of "cruel" I think of kicking puppies. No puppies got kicked.

That's an incoherent statement. It means nothing. What do you mean by "change?"

It probably is incoherent if you don't know what the word change means. It's probably "incomprehensible" for you as well. Get Google.

The entire field of climate science (and related branches) is radically different from what it was 80 years ago.

lol, yah "radically". It's like "extreme" climate science these day. Better wear a harness. Are you being serious?

Some fundamental, base principals remain, but that's like saying "nothing has changed in genetic science" since the discovery of DNA.

As Global Warming relates to Astronomy is hasn't changed. This isn't an Earth sciences class, it's Astronomy. You really don't know the difference between Astronomy and Chemistry? Astronomy and Political Science? Astronomy and Biology? Astronomy and Climatology? Seriously?

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware the field of Astronomy has been radically changed by the recent breakthroughs in the field of climate science

The alarmists are just as ridiculous as these conservative watch dogs.

 

[Furcifer]

Looks like you just really object to GW being mentioned and all this stuff about the curriculum is a red herring.

Um, no.

 

[BenBurch]

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[TraneWreck]

I've watched the entire video, what I haven't watched is the edited one, which apparently was what you saw. Instead maybe you should watch the entire lecture? Just sayin.

Then you're stance is even more vapid.

Wow, that's some strawman.

Nobody is advocating "barring" this guy. But you keep up the fight for society if that's what you think this is about.

You're just grand standing here.

Again, this is what you said:

By bringing that aspect of GW into the discussion he invited this political backlash.

No, he didn't. He invited nothing. He played the part professors and teachers have been playing since at least Socrates. Anyone with half a brain or two freshman classes should realize that.

It's a heuristic method, nothing more. Often controversial subjects are preferable because people have strong feelings. It makes the challenging all the more interesting.

If teaching methods are subject for "political backlash," we better just destroy every law school, political science, and philosophy department in the country.

What's cruel? When I think of "cruel" I think of kicking puppies. No puppies got kicked.

Cruel means inflicting pain, emotional or physical. That video was released as it was to inflict pain on the professor. Cruel is the perfect word.

It probably is incoherent if you don't know what the word change means. It's probably "incomprehensible" for you as well. Get Google.

"Change" is a vague word, especially in the manner you used it. That's why I asked you to specify what you meant.

Climate science has "changed" dramatically in the last decade, hell, the last couple of years. Take something like ice-core samples. Those weren't remotely around 80 years ago, so we knew comparatively little about the planet's carbon cycle. That's a process that wasn't widely used until the 80's and has since been perfected.

Introducing an entire new data source to a field seems like "change" to me. But since you've based your stance on such a vague word, you can always alter the meaning to maintain your hollow argument. That's why it was incoherent: it depends upon a word that has not been defined.



lol, yah "radically". It's like "extreme" climate science these day. Better wear a harness. Are you being serious?

As Global Warming relates to Astronomy is hasn't changed. This isn't an Earth sciences class, it's Astronomy. You really don't know the difference between Astronomy and Chemistry? Astronomy and Political Science? Astronomy and Biology? Astronomy and Climatology? Seriously?

You really don't know that science departments and universities in general are as focused on teaching critical thinking processes as they are delivering subject-specific facts?

Obviously there's more concern for global warming in astronomy than you're letting on. As usual, you've just adopted a ridiculously rigid position based on very little and no amount of information will ever move you. You will just get more and more insulting until everything gets moved to the AAH.

That being said, in any science class, the process of challenging hypotheses and building a stance based on evidence is relevant whatever the specific subject.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware the field of Astronomy has been radically changed by the recent breakthroughs in the field of climate science

You are also not aware of heuristics. The thread devoted to basic concepts that escape you would be a long one, indeed.

The alarmists are just as ridiculous as these conservative watch dogs.

Yes, you always say this. Then the minute you're asked to provide some evidence to support this, it immediately becomes clear that you're just trolling.

 

[Furcifer]

No, he didn't. He invited nothing. He played the part professors and teachers have been playing since at least Socrates. Anyone with half a brain or two freshman classes should realize that.
It's a heuristic method, nothing more. Often controversial subjects are preferable because people have strong feelings. It makes the challenging all the more interesting.

This is pointless, you either realize what the difference between Astronomy and politics is or you don't.

If teaching methods are subject for "political backlash," we better just destroy every law school, political science, and philosophy department in the country.

Another strawman, nobody is criticizing his teaching methods, it's the content. The class looked pretty engaging to me. It's just not Astronomy.

Cruel means inflicting pain, emotional or physical. That video was released as it was to inflict pain on the professor. Cruel is the perfect word.

Are you saying he was emotionally and physically damaged? Even he's not saying that. Way to over empathize

You really don't know that science departments and universities in general are as focused on teaching critical thinking processes as they are delivering subject-specific facts?

Through the curriculum, not by trying to bring politics into every subject.

Obviously there's more concern for global warming in astronomy than you're letting on.

None.

As usual, you've just adopted a ridiculously rigid position based on very little and no amount of information will ever move you. You will just get more and more insulting until everything gets moved to the AAH.

No, just when you're involved. Because you personalize everything, you obviously can't argue your point any other way. Why would you even bring this up in this thread? Again you fail to address the argument. Unbelievable.

The rest of your post is garbage as usual. Please stop grandstanding, it's pathetic.

 

[BenBurch]

Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

 

[TraneWreck]

This is pointless, you either realize what the difference between Astronomy and politics is or you don't.


Another strawman, nobody is criticizing his teaching methods, it's the content. The class looked pretty engaging to me. It's just not Astronomy.

One more time.

"Astronomy" is both a set of facts and a method of inquiry. It's often times more effective to express the method of inquiry through subjects more familiar to the students. This obviously wasn't a high-level astronomy class, it was a general ed seminar. I doubt there would have been a heated discussion about star formation or rules for classifying planets.

That is a teaching method.

Are you saying he was emotionally and physically damaged? Even he's not saying that. Way to over empathize

This is just childish whining. That video was posted to harm that professor's career, just like the Brietbart and O'Keefe videos are manipulated to destroy their subjects. That is cruel, ie, meant to inflict pain.

None.

Many. Astronomers study planets, atmospheres, albedo, sun/star cycles, flares, magnetic fields, run-away greenhouse effects...etc. Studying subjects that are more popularly known or engaging in debates that are heated can be an effective way of engaging students.

And, once again, the method of inquiry is common to all scientific subjects. For a general ed class, that process is more important than simply learning facts.

No, just when you're involved. Because you personalize everything, you obviously can't argue your point any other way. Why would you even bring this up in this thread? Again you fail to address the argument. Unbelievable.

I'm pointing out the banal consistency of your arguments. Having watched it occur again and again, I'm not surprised at what I'm reading. I'm simply putting your statements in their historical context.

When the same 9-11 truthers make the same wrong-minded arguments using the same long-debunked tripe, we don't hesitate to point that out. I'm merely doing the same here. I'm not attacking you as a person, I'm attacking the littany of similar arguments you've presented.

The rest of your post is garbage as usual. Please stop grandstanding, it's pathetic.

Ah, is this must be a fine example of addressing the argument.

Look, you can agree or disagree that the professor's choice was effective as a teaching method. What it was not was an attempt at indocrination or an example of "alarmist" propoganda in the universities.

It was an obvious teaching method used countless times all over the world. The only reason we're even discussing this is because a student decided to try and manipulate a video to smear the professor.

But, of course, you've decided to use this clear case as a vehicle to express your disdain for "alarmists" without having to argue any of the science or defend your position. You know that doing so will lead to all statements being moved to the AAH and the discussion relocated to the moderated global warming threads.

You're basically hiding behind the moderators to generate more prosaic scorn for climate science without having to build a real argument.

 

[Furcifer]

Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

True, and this one became somewhat stagnant at the point where people refused to admit the the lecture was political and not of the scientific nature one would expect in an Astronomy class.

The prof has the right, as a tenured professor, to lecture on what he feels is appropriate for the class. That doesn't mean what he feels is right is going to be free of criticism. The surest way to eliminate that is to have it as an accepted part of the curriculum. In this case the lecture he presented wasn't and he was criticized. What may have been said about him by this group was "unfair" perhaps, and they way the video was edited was improper, but the fact he was targeted wasn't. When a prof starts to veer off from the designated lesson plan to deliver a political message in a "science" class, there needs to be checks and balances.

I don't see how someone can defend his right to lecture how he sees fit, and defend someone right to criticize him. Within reason of course. I really should see how "cruel" they've been to him.

 

[TraneWreck]

I don't see how someone can defend his right to lecture how he sees fit, and defend someone right to criticize him. Within reason of course. I really should see how "cruel" they've been to him.

Is anyone upset with "criticism?"

Criticism is fine, even if it's wrong-minded from a factual standpoint, the argument is good to have out in the open.

The only issue I take with any of this is the attempted smear-by-video-edit that has become so popular of late.

Has anyone in the thread expressed displeasure that criticism occured?

 

[Furcifer]

"Astronomy" is both a set of facts and a method of inquiry.

lol. Astronomy:The scientific study of matter in outer space, especially the positions, dimensions, distribution, motion, composition, energy, and evolution of celestial bodies and phenomena.

Where's Global Warming in that? Do you understand the definition of Astornomy? Where does Water World and coastal property values and hurricanes fit into that definition?

Oh right, the Earth is floating in outer space, so that makes the Earth and Global Warming good topic for Astronomy. That's stellar logic, literally.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personalization

Look, you can agree or disagree that the professor's choice was effective as a teaching method.

Do you even read threads? Like ever? I've made myself very clear and yet you still missed this. It really calls into question your comprehension skills when you make comments like this. I'll say it for like the 5th time, I think the guy is a good prof. His class was engaging. it was just off topic and political.

 

[Furcifer]

Has anyone in the thread expressed displeasure that criticism occured?

Just the prof himself.


(but not in this thread, he's not a member)

 

[TraneWreck]

lol. Astronomy:The scientific study of matter in outer space, especially the positions, dimensions, distribution, motion, composition, energy, and evolution of celestial bodies and phenomena.

Where's Global Warming in that? Do you understand the definition of Astornomy? Where does Water World and coastal property values and hurricanes fit into that definition?

Oh right, the Earth is floating in outer space, so that makes the Earth and Global Warming good topic for Astronomy. That's stellar logic, literally.

Right, suns and stars and planets aren't in outer space. Good point.

I'll try to break this down even more simply. There are at least two reasons for discussing global warming in a general ed astronomy class:

1) There are factual subjects relevant to the scope of the class. For example, the sun is a star. The way stars operate is a big subject in astronomy. The way the sun affects the Earth, and what the Earth does with that sunlight (albedo...etc.) are all relevant to astronomy. Understanding how planets reflect light is essential on a number of levels.

2) Use a topic that is familiar with the class as a vehicle to deal with methodology issues. That process is common to all scientific subjects.

You've made a mostly incorrect argument with regard to #1, but have wholly ignored #2. Once again, this was not a high-level astronomy class. Basic concepts are essential, and those don't necessarily need to be expressed through subject-specific presentations.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personalization

Do you even read threads? Like ever? I've made myself very clear and yet you still missed this. It really calls into question your comprehension skills when you make comments like this. I'll say it for like the 5th time, I think the guy is a good prof. His class was engaging. it was just off topic and political.

Oh, the irony.

Again, you either think the talk was a good choice or it wasn't. By arguing that it was "off-topic," I am assuming you think he should have delivered a more astronomy-specific lecture.

Mostly I don't care about that, however. The statement of yours I took issue with was your claim that he was inviting such a backlash by dealing with a controversial topic. Surely you can see how such timidity in a university would be wholly destructive to the learning environment.

In anticipation of your claim that you never said that, here are your words again:

By bringing that aspect of GW into the discussion he invited this political backlash.

Would there have been a "backlash" without the maliciously edited video? It seems to me that the video, not the presentation, was the source of said backlash.

Put in context, there's not really anything to be upset about.

 

[TraneWreck]

Just the prof himself.


(but not in this thread, he's not a member)

But he was also more upset by the tactics taken by his opponents rather than the idea that he was criticized.

 

[Upchurch]

Not only that but the difference between Astronomy, Climatology and Political Science. I suggest you familiarize yourself with all four subjects and then get back to me about where Global Warming belongs.

Says the guy who stated of our own Sun:

Property Location and description

Center of Galaxy​

There isn't anyone who couldn't use a little more education, once in a while.


Joking aside, I don't know what this guy's motivations where when he taught that particular class period. I do know it is a perfectly valid teaching technique to relate abstracted ideas, like the atmosphere of other planets, to things that are more within a student's everyday experiences. The topic of Global Warming being discussed in this class is not, per se, a great departure from the primary subject matter. A comparative analysis between, say, Hamlet and Harry Potter would be something else entirely.

For example, the one time politics was ever mentioned in one my physics curriculum was when the SSC was being shut down. Was that strictly part of the curriculum? Not even remotely. Was it worth discussing in physics classes? I thought so at the time and still do.

Is what this professor did really that much different?

 

[Furcifer]

Right, suns and stars and planets aren't in outer space. Good point.

You seem confused? Outer space is off this planet. Earth.

I'll try to break this down even more simply. There are at least two reasons for discussing global warming in a general ed astronomy class:

1) There are factual subjects relevant to the scope of the class. For example, the sun is a star. The way stars operate is a big subject in astronomy. The way the sun affects the Earth, and what the Earth does with that sunlight (albedo...etc.) are all relevant to astronomy. Understanding how planets reflect light is essential on a number of levels.

That wasn't the topic he was discussing. Are you really sure you watched the video? It's 40 minutes long and probably recorded on an iPhone.

2) Use a topic that is familiar with the class as a vehicle to deal with methodology issues. That process is common to all scientific subjects.

How about Venus, that sucker is familiar, celestial, and a prime example of the effect of the sun on a planet with a very high concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

No, he chose Water World, a fictious flop of a movie that exaggerates the threat of the ice caps melting. Hey, at least he explained how wrong it was.

If he was actually lecturing the way you are suggesting there would have been no issue. That's actually how it was presented in my class, when I took Astronomy, 15 years ago.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personalization

Mostly I don't care about that, however. The statement of yours I took issue with was your claim that he was inviting such a backlash by dealing with a controversial topic.

Again incorrect, and had you read the thread you wouldn't be making this mistake yet again. The backlash was a result of him being off topic in the classroom. Had he decided to do this same lecture off of scheduled class time there wouldn't have been an issue. The issue arose from him trying to make Global Warming, and the political side of it, part of Astronomy.

There's nothing stopping him from dealing with a controversial subject. If he wants he could lecture on intelligent design, astrology, assisted suicide, child pornography and swearing on TV. All at the same time. It's different however if he uses his class hours to do so.

But he was also more upset by the tactics taken by his opponents rather than the idea that he was criticized.

And rightly fully so. As much as there are rules to the classroom there are rules to whistle blowing (or whatever you call what this conservative group was doing). This conservative group appears to have run what amounts to a smear campaign.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I had found that link earlier; I didn't think it was applicable because it was for 2009 and the instructor was different. ....

I made an effort to find this professor's class syllabus but didn't find it in the time I had to spend. So thank you for all this extra effort. It would however, seem that 3body is moving the goalpost.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

lol. Astronomy:The scientific study of matter in outer space, especially the positions, dimensions, distribution, motion, composition, energy, and evolution of celestial bodies and phenomena. ....

Modern astronomy courses recognize the Earth is just as important to study in the context of planetary science as are all the other planets. Your definition is out of date.

 

[BenBurch]

Modern astronomy courses recognize the Earth is just as important to study in the context of planetary science as are all the other planets. Your definition is out of date.

When I studied Astronomy in the 70s, the textbook had a chapter on Earth.

Case closed.

 

[TraneWreck]

You seem confused? Outer space is off this planet. Earth.

Yes, how could studying the planet known best to scientists ever possibly benefit the study of other planets? It is a total mystery.

That wasn't the topic he was discussing. Are you really sure you watched the video? It's 40 minutes long and probably recorded on an iPhone.

There are two separate questions:

1) Is global warming relevant to Astronomy?
2) Was that specific speech relevant to Astronomy?

You're making general claims:

lol. Astronomy:The scientific study of matter in outer space, especially the positions, dimensions, distribution, motion, composition, energy, and evolution of celestial bodies and phenomena.

That isn't a statement about that lecture, it's a general statement. Thus, I responded generally.

How about Venus, that sucker is familiar, celestial, and a prime example of the effect of the sun on a planet with a very high concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

No, he chose Water World, a fictious flop of a movie that exaggerates the threat of the ice caps melting. Hey, at least he explained how wrong it was.

If he was actually lecturing the way you are suggesting there would have been no issue. That's actually how it was presented in my class, when I took Astronomy, 15 years ago.

There are plenty of things he could have talked about. For any lecture about any subject there will always be something else that could have been discussed. That means very little.

He chose to approach the subject in the manner he did. We don't know the full scope of the class, how it fit into his point, or really much else. All we know is that a malicious edit job was undertaken to smear him and there's really nothing that unusual or inappropriate about the lecture itself.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personalization

Again incorrect, and had you read the thread you wouldn't be making this mistake yet again. The backlash was a result of him being off topic in the classroom. Had he decided to do this same lecture off of scheduled class time there wouldn't have been an issue. The issue arose from him trying to make Global Warming, and the political side of it, part of Astronomy.

There's nothing stopping him from dealing with a controversial subject. If he wants he could lecture on intelligent design, astrology, assisted suicide, child pornography and swearing on TV. All at the same time. It's different however if he uses his class hours to do so.

Yeah, right. This is an issue because of an attempted smear campaign. Teaching by analogy, critically testing people's opinions, and playing devil's advocate are commonplace in a university. The use of subjects from other disciplines to highlight important concepts is likewise quotidian.

We wouldn't be talking about this without the video. That's the source of the "controversy."

 

[Meed]

That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

How do you define "part of the curriculum"?

No it isn't.

How do define "course material" if not "material included in a course"?

Riiiiiiiight. Repeating it won't make it correct. Let's say if it doesn't make it under "Astronomy" on Jeopardy it isn't related.

Let's not.

You apparently aren't getting the difference between "astronomy" and "related to astronomy". The politics of stem cell research is not biology, but it is obviously related to biology. The biology of stem cell research is not politics, but it is obviously related to politics.

Wah?

"Why is biology important?" isn't a question within the field of biology in the same sense "what should we do about global warming?" isn't a question within the field of astronomy.

And it's certainly OK to question the deviation.

Sure, it's okay to question whatever you want. That doesn't change the fact that such deviations are commonplace and completely within the rights of a teacher. If students don't like the class they have opportunity to give a bad course evaluation and anonymously express their complaints at the end of the term.

And I've never heard of a teacher not being criticized for throwing a pop quiz

You missed my point. Certain deviations from a syllabus can actually result in the teacher being sued, because a syllabus is effectively a legal contract. Lecturing on something not directly specified in the syllabus is not considered a violation of the contract. At least I've never heard of anything like that. I've seen teachers sued for things like changing the date of a test that was specified in the syllabus.