AGW indoctrination of LSU students

[Furcifer]

What?

You don't seem to understand "directly related" like the church and abortion, and tangentially related like hurricanes and Astronomy.

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

Yah,because we haven't learned yet what a hindrance politics can be to 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.

What's even funnier is I was the one that brought it up in my very first post in this thread

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

Again, you don't comprehend very well. I've said numerous times it is relevant. Are you having trouble reading or are you just pulling my leg?

 

[Furcifer]

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

And this is related to the discussion how? There are all kinds of people that study all kinds of stuff, what's the point you're trying to make here

 

[Drachasor]

And this is related to the discussion how? There are all kinds of people that study all kinds of stuff, what's the point you're trying to make here

It's an astrophysics/astronomy class. It's introductory, meaning it is supposed to go over a wide swath of information related to the field. The study of Global Warming is covered by an aspect of Astrophysics, so it is entirely relevant to the class.

 

[TraneWreck]

You don't seem to understand "directly related" like the church and abortion, and tangentially related like hurricanes and Astronomy.

Right, "atmosphere" and "planet" have such a shaky relationship.

Once again, science is a method of inquiry, not a set of facts. In lower level science classes, whether biology or physics or chemistry or astronomy, that method is essential to convey. It's "directly related" to all scientific subjects.

My mother is a department head at a university. That department is not English, yet they've adopted a policy to deal with the horrid writing standards of the up-and-coming generation.

Why? Because the ability to write is an essential foundational skill in her subject. Likewise, the ability to critically reason is an essential foundational skill to cultivate in science classes.

Yah,because we haven't learned yet what a hindrance politics can be to science.

Yeah, that NASA has just killed science.

Politics can either be a hindrance or a great support to the sciences. Science educators have a vested interest in educating their students to properly support the sciences, whether they choose it as a career or not.

You may be shocked to learn that most new drugs are developed through government grants. In fact, science funding of all kinds largely comes from the government.

What's even funnier is I was the one that brought it up in my very first post in this thread

Again, you don't comprehend very well. I've said numerous times it is relevant. Are you having trouble reading or are you just pulling my leg?

Yes, there hasn't been much of an argument from the beginning.

 

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem
You don't seem to understand "directly related" like the church and abortion, and tangentially related like hurricanes and Astronomy.

Right, "atmosphere" and "planet" have such a shaky relationship...

I still trying to figure out how "church" and "abortion" are directly related,...unless one's church has a clinic in the basement?

 

[Furcifer]

It's an astrophysics/astronomy class. It's introductory, meaning it is supposed to go over a wide swath of information related to the field. The study of Global Warming is covered by an aspect of Astrophysics, so it is entirely relevant to the class.

Agreed, GW, or more accurately the green house effect it. This lecture is nothing of the sort. If you'd taken Astronomy you'd know that

 

[Furcifer]

lmfao, NASA is politics to science. So silly.

You won the thread with that one.

 

[TraneWreck]

lmfao, NASA is politics to science. So silly.

You won the thread with that one.

What? Your first sentence makes little sense.

You think the massive amount of funding NASA received in the 60's had nothing to do with politics?

To give but one example...

 

[lomiller]

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

Or are you going to redefine Astronomy as well?

and here we have the admission the real problem is that he thunks greenhosue warming is politics rather then sceince

 

[Drachasor]

Agreed, GW, or more accurately the green house effect it. This lecture is nothing of the sort. If you'd taken Astronomy you'd know that

No, GW in PARTICULAR falls under a branch of Astrophysics. It doesn't suddenly become less accurate because it applies to the Earth as it is now. If you'd taken astronomy, then you'd know that and you'd also know that making a distinction between astronomy and astrophysics with regards to college courses is ridiculous. He does go over the science in a basic way; your only problem seems to be he doesn't ignore the 800lb Gorilla in the room, which is the political aspect.

There's nothing wrong with a lecture in a normal science class that relates subjects in that class with things going on in everyday life. I'll grant that spending every day on a lecture like the one he gave wouldn't make sense, but as an overview of astronomy and astrophysics, it makes perfect sense to have a lecture or two about how politics can interfere with science. I'd say this is even an important thing to do, especially in a basic course.

 

[tsig]

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

Or are you going to redefine Astronomy as well?

Global warming is science not politics.

 

[tsig]

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.

It's science.

 

[tsig]

and here we have the admission the real problem is that he thunks greenhosue warming is politics rather then sceince

That's been his whole approach to AWG from way back.

 

[BenBurch]

delete

 

[uke2se]

AGW deniers tries to smear scientist by lying. In other news, the sky is blue.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Global warming is science not politics.

Actually there seems to be some confusion about this even in this thread...

and here we have the admission the real problem is that he thunks greenhosue warming is politics rather then sceince

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?

Uh huh, yep.
iow, discussing politics and science together is good

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.

Uh huh, yep.
iow, so they can mix and match as they see fit. Got it.

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

So they can stray from science to politics. I understand.

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.

Ok. Again, we are aying that mixing science and politics is perfectly acceptable.

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

They cross and recross and cross again too, I guess.

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

They sure seem to be don't they.

Politics can either be a hindrance or a great support to the sciences. Science educators have a vested interest in educating their students to properly support the sciences, whether they choose it as a career or not.

You may be shocked to learn that most new drugs are developed through government grants. In fact, science funding of all kinds largely comes from the government.

I guess that AGW science gets a lot of money from their governments too. So they are crossing and mixing once again.

AGW deniers tries to smear scientist by lying. In other news, the sky is bluefalling.

fixed.

Global warming is science not politics.

and here we have the admission the real problem is that he thunks greenhosue warming is politics rather then sceince

I really get the impression that not eveeryone is on board with their critical thinking skills and application of same here.

Just saying.

 

[Upchurch]

Uh huh, yep.
iow, discussing politics and science together is good

You misunderstand my point. Would you like to try again?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You misunderstand my point. Would you like to try again?

Maybe you should explain it again - I have re-read it and it still seems that you are saying that discussing politics in science together was "worthy" (I said "good") and that this teacher did the same thing.

But there is quite a long list of confusion I have listed; if I have misunderstood yours, I apologise.

 

[Upchurch]

Maybe you should explain it again - I have re-read it and it still seems that you are saying that discussing politics in science together was "worthy" (I said "good") and that this teacher did the same thing.

That particular discussion (political or otherwise) was relevant and, although I didn't mention it in my other post, contemporary to the topic of the course. That is not the same thing as saying that is appropriate (or "good"), imho, to interject any political discussion into any science course.

 

[Drachasor]

To be clear on what I was talking about.

Like with the Superconducting Super-Collider in Texas a couple decades back, there was a lot of politics involved. That doesn't mean it wasn't a scientific issue. It would make perfect sense for a physics class to talk about that during a lesson or even have a lesson going over it. Inevitably this will touch on the politics involved, and trying to ignore them fails to actually look at the issue as a whole.

Similarly, human-caused global warming is a scientific fact, but politics and how we wlive is involved in the matter and how to address it. Talking about one and ignoring the other, especially in an intro class (which should be giving people a broad understanding of how the subject is important in various ways) would be a disservice to the students.