AGW indoctrination of LSU students

[Furcifer]

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.

The goal posts haven't moved.

I think we agree, the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere of this planet and that of other planets, namely Venus is an important part of the curriculum in Astronomy.

If we assume that this was this professor's lecture as it applies to Astronomy and not politics, which is absurd, he's a horrible physics professor. He didn't cover much science, and totally forgot Venus.

I don't think he's a bad professor, so I choose instead to think he's using his classroom time to express his political views on GW.

There's nothing wrong with that, assuming the rest of the curriculum is covered (1 class is easy to make up).

So what's the fuss? You want to silence these conservative nuts? I sincerely hope not. I hope this is about them misrepresenting the facts.

 

[Furcifer]

How do you define "part of the curriculum"?

The curriculum is set out by a governing body so that it's consistent. This allows credits to be transferred from institution to institution. It's then refined by the professor and outlined in the syllabus.

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

Course material is outlined in the syllabus and is "fair game" to be tested on in quizzes, tests and exams.

I think you're confusing what is discussed in the class as "class material".

Why play semantics on this? The lecture was low on science and heavy on politics. This is a science course, so it's lacking in content if it was specifically for this course. Having taken Astronomy before I know this is not the way Global Warming is usually presented and it's no wonder these conservative nuts picked up on it.

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.

That's like saying atoms should be part of the biology course material because everything is made of atoms. Everything is "tangentially" related. Some more than others. This lecture was more tangentially related to politics than Astronomy.

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.

Ahh, you mean like "in addition to" as opposed to "instead of". Well I mentioned in a previous post if this is his lesson on the greenhouse effect he missed the boat in both the physics,chemistry and the comparison to Venus.

In looking at different syllabuses on the net I see this is still taught as a comparison. They compare Earth to the rest of the planet like Mars and Venus. In this case he didn't do that so his lecture is lacking. I doubt if this was the last lecture on green house effect and I'm pretty sure he will cover it further.

 

[kmortis]

What part of

A batch of posts have been moved off to AAH. As jhunter said earlier, keep it civil, on topic and don't personalize or drag in arguments from other threads.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

was confusing?

I had to edit a few posts, and move a couple more off to AAHland. If you can't play nice, don't play at all.

Keep it civil.
Keep on topic.
Don't import arguments, it appears that there are more than enough already here.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[Drachasor]

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. [/edit]

Again, astrophysics and astronomy concepts are both taught in intro "astronomy" courses. This has been pointed out to you many times. Heck, I even pointed out it is in my old book for intro astronomy.

A class that only teaches astronomy and not astrophysics doesn't exist, AFAIK.

 

[lomiller]

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

I think most of us have come to that conclusions by now

 

[Furcifer]

Again, astrophysics and astronomy concepts are both taught in intro "astronomy" courses. This has been pointed out to you many times. Heck, I even pointed out it is in my old book for intro astronomy.

A class that only teaches astronomy and not astrophysics doesn't exist, AFAIK.

And this is the only one teaching politics, hence the problem.

Or are you going to redefine Astronomy as well?

 

[Furcifer]

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.

The definition is from the dictionary. Astronomy is looking outward, it's only tangentially related because we use the Earth as a point of comparison to other planets. If you remove that comparison you're left with climatology, an entirely different subject.

 

[Thunder]

AGW is science.

however, much anti-AGW ideas are not science.

 

[Furcifer]

I think most of us have come to that conclusions by now

Again, failed logic, and presumably how you arrived at the false conclusion that this prof is being targeted "unfairly". There's a lapse in critical thinking being applied to the problem. Overlooking things like curriculum, what the study of Astronomy is, politics in a science class, hyperbole and factual errors. These are all symptoms of the alarmism we see surrounding this subject.

 

[Furcifer]

AGW is science.

It's many things actually. It's science, politics and philosophy to name a few.

Under the heading of science we find, chemisty, physics, biology, statistics and math. Just not much Astronomy.

 

[TraneWreck]

Again, failed logic, and presumably how you arrived at the false conclusion that this prof is being targeted "unfairly". There's a lapse in critical thinking being applied to the problem. Overlooking things like curriculum, what the study of Astronomy is, politics in a science class, hyperbole and factual errors. These are all symptoms of the alarmism we see surrounding this subject.

No one would be remotely shocked or surprised if a course about 20th century religion dealt with abortion.

No one would be remotely surprised if a class on biology or geology or genetics dealt with evolution and specifically with political issues like intelligent design.

No one would be remotely surprised if an economics class dealt with the budget deficit and governmental responses.

No one would be surprised if a physics or geology class dealt with young earth creationism.

Why is anyone surprised that this class dealt with a political issue?

Each of these classes could easily be taught with no reference to contemporary politics. That doesn't mean politics are outside the scope of the subject matters nor is such discussion inappropriate.

Once again, issues well-known to students are an excellent means of dealing with foundational concepts and a good way to engage.

And since multiple posters have shown that Astronomy curriculums regularly deal with Global Warming and this class in particular had time set aside for such discussion, there is no actual issue here save the malicious editing of video tape.

If this exact scenario occured in an economics classroom with a professor using Friedman to challenge some particular stance, would you be as upset?

 

[BenBurch]

The whole POINT behind having tenure is so that professors can deal with subjects as THEY see fit. You don't like it, get some books and educate yourself, or find some other university that fits your ideology.

 

[Drachasor]

It's many things actually. It's science, politics and philosophy to name a few.

Under the heading of science we find, chemisty, physics, biology, statistics and math. Just not much Astronomy.

You do find it under astrophysics, however.

 

[Furcifer]

No one would be remotely shocked or surprised if a course about 20th century religion dealt with abortion.

No because religion or the church is the only one opposing it.

No one would be remotely surprised if a class on biology or geology or genetics dealt with evolution and specifically with political issues like intelligent design.

No because it's part of the curriculum.

No one would be remotely surprised if an economics class dealt with the budget deficit and governmental responses.

No because it's part of the curriculum.

No one would be surprised if a physics or geology class dealt with young earth creationism.

Yah no, I took almost every physics course and young Earth creationism never can up. If it had I would have been talking to department heads and questioning the profs motivations.

Why is anyone surprised that this class dealt with a political issue?

Because it's Astronomy.

Each of these classes could easily be taught with no reference to contemporary politics. That doesn't mean politics are outside the scope of the subject matters nor is such discussion inappropriate.

Absolutely not. But certainly not without calling the professors motivations into question.

And since multiple posters have shown that Astronomy curriculums regularly deal with Global Warming and this class in particular had time set aside for such discussion, there is no actual issue here save the malicious editing of video tape.

Except you don't know how the material is presented. Once again because you obviously aren't reading the thread, it was taught and discussed in the Astronomy course I took. It was related to planetary atmospheres, namely Venus, and it wasn't about politics and hyperbole, it was about science.

If this exact scenario occured in an economics classroom with a professor using Friedman to challenge some particular stance, would you be as upset?

lol, I'm far from upset. That's just you projecting.

Since you didn't notice, I only became involved in this thread when I saw people trying to rationalize lecturing on the politics of Global Warming in Astronomy because it was somehow related. That's what's upsetting, to see otherwise rational people in this forum make silly irrational statements. To flounder around in denial and make up definitions so they can redefine things.

If I saw people saying ID was related to evolution I would speak up. If I saw people saying Astrology was related to Astronomy I would speak up. And when I see politics in science I speak up.

(I don't know who Friedman is?)

 

[Meed]

The curriculum is set out by a governing body so that it's consistent. This allows credits to be transferred from institution to institution. It's then refined by the professor and outlined in the syllabus.

That varies from class to class. Generally, teachers have a lot of freedom and flexibility and do not simply teach things mandated to them by some administrative body.

Course material is outlined in the syllabus and is "fair game" to be tested on in quizzes, tests and exams.

I think you're confusing what is discussed in the class as "class material".

Who's to say this lecture wasn't "fair game" to be tested on?

Why play semantics on this? The lecture was low on science and heavy on politics. This is a science course, so it's lacking in content if it was specifically for this course. Having taken Astronomy before I know this is not the way Global Warming is usually presented and it's no wonder these conservative nuts picked up on it.

There's nothing uncommon or prohibited about discussing a little politics in a science class, when the politics relate to the science.

That's like saying atoms should be part of the biology course material because everything is made of atoms.

No it isn't.

Everything is "tangentially" related. Some more than others. This lecture was more tangentially related to politics than Astronomy.

That's what I said. It's politics, but in relation to an astronomy topic.

 

[Furcifer]

The whole POINT behind having tenure is so that professors can deal with subjects as THEY see fit.

There's nothing stopping him from dealing with a controversial subject.

The prof has the right, as a tenured professor, to lecture on what he feels is appropriate for the class.

That being said, I don't think this guy should be fired, or disciplined for doing so.

There's nothing wrong with him lecturing on the subject, just not within the confines of the classroom without changing the curriculum.

Global Warming does have the effect of blurring people's vision it seems.

A prof's got every right to lecture as he see fit. He also has the responsibility of to change to curriculum to reflect what he's teaching or be subject to criticism. Once it's part of the curriculum there' nothing people can do to change that unless the material is grossly inappropriate. Bringing politics into a science class won't be easy, but it's entirely possible to do so.

 

[TraneWreck]

No because religion or the church is the only one opposing it.

What?

No because it's part of the curriculum.

No because it's part of the curriculum.

Could be. Doesn't have to be.

Yah no, I took almost every physics course and young Earth creationism never can up. If it had I would have been talking to department heads and questioning the profs motivations.

Understanding how "Red shift" makes a 6000 year old universe impossible is both an interesting way of conveying the discoveries that allowed us to know the universe is expanding and a deeply political issue in much of the United States.

It's a perfectly appropriate subject for a physics class to deal with. It's also perfectly appropriate to never bring it up. It all depends on how the professor wants to convey the message.

Because it's Astronomy.

I enjoy this innocent world you occupy where politics and science never cross.

Absolutely not. But certainly not without calling the professors motivations into question.

What's wrong with professors having motivations. One of my better law school professors was a leading Constitutional Law expert. He testifies before Congress regularly, perhaps most famously in the lead up to Clinton's impeachment.

He was insanely conservative. It didn't bother me at all. I enjoyed arguing with him. The notion of running to some authority to force him to remove all opinion from his lecture never remotely crossed my mind.

I had a Marxist philosophy teacher in undergrad. I disagreed with quite a bit of what he argued. I'm still good friends with him and learned a great deal.

These students are adults, they're not 6. They can hear views they disagree with. One of the best ways to learn, as these boards prove on a regular basis, is to try and disprove a position you disagree with.

Demands for opinion-free, sterile teachers generally come from those who have arrived at their positions without rigorous thought.

Except you don't know how the material is presented. Once again because you obviously aren't reading the thread, it was taught and discussed in the Astronomy course I took. It was related to planetary atmospheres, namely Venus, and it wasn't about politics and hyperbole, it was about science.

Yes, I did. It was amusing how many people were able to show that global warming was a fairly regular topic for an astronomy class.

lol, I'm far from upset. That's just you projecting.

[...]

If I saw people saying ID was related to evolution I would speak up. If I saw people saying Astrology was related to Astronomy I would speak up. And when I see politics in science I speak up.

Can you produce an astronomy teacher that will inform us that global warming isn't relevant to their subject?

Seems like all you have to do is go to a university's website and send an e-mail.

 

[Furcifer]

That's what I said. It's politics, but in relation to an astronomy topic.

No, Keppler, Copernicus, Galileo, the heliocentric universe, that's politics related to Astronomy. Not Water World and heat waves.

You're running fast and loose with the definitions, hence the OP.

 

[Drachasor]

I enjoy this innocent world you occupy where politics and science never cross.

It is kind of funny, since they are tripping over each other all the time.

 

[Drachasor]

No, Keppler, Copernicus, Galileo, the heliocentric universe, that's politics related to Astronomy. Not Water World and heat waves.

You're running fast and loose with the definitions, hence the OP.

Again it is related to Astrophysics and there are Astrophysicists who study this stuff.