One in four Americans unaware that Earth circles Sun

Feb 14, 2014
This NASA image shows the first color image of the Earth taken by the Apollo 8 astronauts on December 24, 1968

Americans are enthusiastic about the promise of science but lack basic knowledge of it, with one in four unaware that the Earth revolves around the Sun, said a poll out Friday.

The survey included more than 2,200 people in the United States and was conducted by the National Science Foundation.

Ten questions about physical and were on the quiz, and the average score—6.5 correct—was barely a passing grade.

Just 74 percent of respondents knew that the Earth revolved around the Sun, according to the results released at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Chicago.

Fewer than half (48 percent) knew that human beings evolved from earlier species of animals.

The result of the survey, which is conducted every two years, will be included in a National Science Foundation report to President Barack Obama and US lawmakers.

One in three said science should get more funding from the government.

Nearly 90 percent said the benefits of science outweigh any dangers, and about the same number expressed interest in learning about medical discoveries.

Explore further: Americans struggle with science, respect scientists, survey finds

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Spain the dunces in international science test

May 08, 2012

Spaniards came bottom of the class in an 11-nation science test and nearly half of them could not name a single important scientist in history, a survey showed Tuesday.

Recommended for you

User comments : 271

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

krundoloss
4.5 / 5 (17) Feb 14, 2014
Where do they find these people? Who in the f%$&! doesn't know that the Earth revolves around the sun? I don't get it, really. In order to not know that, you would have to actively reject the knowledge.
Dr_toad
Feb 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Doug_Huffman
1.5 / 5 (26) Feb 14, 2014
That's a pretty bland obtuse truth that y'all are touting. *How* do you know that Earth orbits the Sun, or, indeed, anything not directly experienced- monads into your mind? Fire is ouch hot. Is there any ouch in ionizing radiation. How about evolution, any direct experience?
yyz
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 14, 2014
"Who in the f%$&! doesn't know that the Earth revolves around the sun? I don't get it, really. In order to not know that, you would have to actively reject the knowledge."

Well, some religious types do just that: http://rationalwi...centrism
qquax
4.7 / 5 (14) Feb 14, 2014
@Doug_Huffman, you are obviously a figment of my imagination, so I will ignore your asinine comment.

Eikka
1.8 / 5 (19) Feb 14, 2014
Well, some religious types do just that


The irony is that while the modern geocentrism depends on a newtonian space to argue that the earth stays still, the Einsteinian universe with relativity means that the earth is not revolving around the sun either, because there is no background relative to which anything could be said to stay still.

With relativity, you can't even tell the difference between whether you are spinning along with the planet, or whether the entire universe is spinning around you because they both actually produce identical forces from your point of view.

So it's just as well to say the sun goes around the earth, or that the earth goes around the sun, or the earth and sun are stationary and the rest of the planets orbit around the two - or even that everything revolves around Pluto - it's all the same in the end.

This of course is not commonly taught, so everyone knows that the "scientific truth" is that the earth goes around the sun.
jakack
4.4 / 5 (15) Feb 14, 2014
yeah...this is really hard to believe. I'd like to see the actual question and a reason for people answering no.

I could see myself being critical of the question and answering that the earth doesn't "circle" around the sun, because it technically has a slight elliptical and wobbly revolution. And you could add that it isn't always the same based on the location of the other planets.

Perhaps this quarter percent is actually the well educated answering in a more technical way than a general way since after all it is funded by the NSF and they don't want to look naive in thinking that it follows a path represented by a true circle.
Jamesly
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 14, 2014
Well, it's not that hard to believe. At this moment of typing this comment, there are 7 comments and we already have a (likely religious) nutjob, @Doug_Huffman.
rjflory
4 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2014
Lots of ignorant hand-waving above- Simply wishing magic exists does not make it so.

Just read about the careful observations and logical insights of Mr. Kepler in http://www.kepler...rth.html
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (20) Feb 14, 2014
How many attended govt union schools?
skicreature
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 14, 2014


With relativity, you can't even tell the difference between whether you are spinning along with the planet, or whether the entire universe is spinning around you because they both actually produce identical forces from your point of view.


Well actually since rotation is a type of acceleration we can actually tell that the earth is spinning and not the other way around as acceleration is not relative it is absolute. It is only speed that is relative.
excellentjim
1.6 / 5 (15) Feb 14, 2014
Sure would love to see the questions. This looks too much like another "Government Funded" study designed to get a predetermined outcome. Statements like "Fewer than half (48 percent) knew that human beings evolved from earlier species of animals." are rather dubious since, although we believe it to be so, it is still only a theory and has not been "proven". The wording of the question could easily be tricky enough to get just the answers one was looking for to reach a desired conclusion.
Also, the original story says Nine questions – this one says Ten questions. And how do you get 6.5 questions correct? Again, without the questions, we have no way of placing a value on the reported data.
Mayday
5 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2014
I thought that the Earth orbited the Solar System's center of gravity, which just happens to be almost always located below the Sun's surface. But I think technically, the Earth "revolves" around, as in "moves in a curved course around," the Sun, Mercury, and Venus. :-)
Protoplasmix
3.6 / 5 (13) Feb 14, 2014
Educated, well-informed consumers are bad for the economy. Major media outlets like faux news would have an impossible task pushing their agenda on their viewers if their viewers knew better. It would be a disaster of economic proportions if too many people were to be educated.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (22) Feb 14, 2014
t would be a disaster of economic proportions if too many people were to be educated.

Unless they were "educated" by the govt propaganda service NPR?
Modernmystic
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 14, 2014
That's a pretty bland obtuse truth that y'all are touting. *How* do you know that Earth orbits the Sun, or, indeed, anything not directly experienced- monads into your mind? Fire is ouch hot. Is there any ouch in ionizing radiation. How about evolution, any direct experience?


Do you have any direct experience that Abraham Lincoln lived? No? If you believe he did you're a hypocrite ;)
jakack
2.9 / 5 (13) Feb 14, 2014
How many attended govt union schools?


It would be interesting to compare the answers from those who attended public school vs. home-school.

I'll be down-voted en masse for the rest of this, but I posit that far more home-schoolers than public-schoolers would answer correctly if asked about the earth's revolution around the sun.

Evolution. To say whether someone answered correctly or incorrectly on "evolution is law" is to say the least, itching for a predetermined outcome.
Husky
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2014
the other three are unaware that the earth is not cut in halve as suggested by the nasa image with this article, but in fact is caused by shadows.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (10) Feb 14, 2014
I'll be down-voted en masse for the rest of this
Well I gave you a four, and it would have been a 5 but for the fact that there are many who are home-school by religious zealots, which will skew your "far more" comment.

PS - don't feed the troll or you'll get pulled into a lecture about socialism and all its evils!
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (10) Feb 14, 2014
That's a pretty bland obtuse truth that y'all are touting. *How* do you know that Earth orbits the Sun, or, indeed, anything not directly experienced- monads into your mind? Fire is ouch hot. Is there any ouch in ionizing radiation. How about evolution, any direct experience?
Evidence dougie. You know, the stuff which convinces rational people that your god is not real? The stuff your priests teach you to be afraid of? This sort of evidence is much more reliable than the so-called eye-witness evidence you find in your book full of lies.
jakack
3.6 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2014
Maggnus - I'll concede to your correction on the "far more" comment. There probably are religious segments that won't even breach the subject of science. I can think of the Amish as one example.

Now I'm just begging for a downvote here! Seriously religious people, in general, have always aspired for truth and answers, especially in science. I say "in general" because there are a lot of blind followers of religion who sadly refuse to confront any discomfort in challenging their faith.
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 14, 2014
Now I'm just begging for a downvote here! Seriously religious people, in general, have always aspired for truth and answers, especially in science. I say "in general" because there are a lot of blind followers of religion who sadly refuse to confront any discomfort in challenging their faith.
With the qualifier you've attached, I agree. Go back a couple of hundred years and you'll find that the greatest science of the time was done in countries where today, even a sideways comment about it will get you lashes, if you're lucky. Death of you're not. It seems there are some who would like to lead the US down that same road.
Hev
5 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2014
Since the USA has a major space programme does not say much for the basic education in the schools.
Eikka
3.6 / 5 (8) Feb 14, 2014
Well actually since rotation is a type of acceleration we can actually tell that the earth is spinning and not the other way around as acceleration is not relative it is absolute. It is only speed that is relative.


Not really.

If you could do that, it would invalidate Einstein. Suppose you were the only thing in the universe and you were spinning. What would you be spinning relative to? If in that situation you felt a centrifugal force, that would mean there was an absolute background of space that was stationary so you could spin relative to something and feel the force, but that would be in contradiction with the theory of relativity that assumes there is no such thing and would not work if there was.

On the contrary, rotation is only meaningful when you have something else to compare against, and as such it is actually impossible to tell the difference whether that something is simply orbiting around you. There is no absolute.
jakack
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 14, 2014
I probably am using the term religious a bit too loosely for an accurate generalization, especially if we are speaking of a certain period in time.

I get the all too subtle hint of prejudice against the religious as if religion equates to being anti-science. Bottom line, it just simply is not true.

brainwav93
2 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2014
"Who in the f%$&! doesn't know that the Earth revolves around the sun? I don't get it, really. In order to not know that, you would have to actively reject the knowledge."

Well, some religious types do just that: http://rationalwi...centrism


According to Einstein "The Earth revolves (sic, should read orbits) around the Sun" is a false statement. Either the physics of the person who wrote the question is 100 years out of date, or they are being deliberately obtuse.
Eikka
3.8 / 5 (10) Feb 14, 2014
According to Einstein "The Earth revolves (sic, should read orbits) around the Sun" is a false statement.


It's not a false statement, it's simply an arbitrary statement because you can freely choose your frame of reference. You can very well say that the earth goes around the sun as long as you understand and aknowledge that it is an arbitrary choice of a point of view rather than any physical reality.

This however is not how science is communicated in the media. In media Science with a capital S provides definitive answers instead of that kind of "philobabble and handwaving", and frankly this is why so many people simply take the answers it gives as yet another gospel, whether they believe in it or not.

The talking heads on TV simply talk about Evidence and Proof, and Verifiably etc. without saying anything about the underlying assumptions or choices in one's point of view that lead to the particular conclusions and interpretations, that one cannot actually prove.
h20dr
4.7 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2014
'Low information' people are abundant in American society. Not surprising, given the general state of the Union.
Eikka
3.8 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2014
The problem of the underlying assumptions, or axioms, is that "It works" is not a proof that it is so. You just have to believe that it is so and see how far that carries you.

antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (8) Feb 14, 2014
It's not a false statement, it's simply an arbitrary statement because you can freely choose your frame of reference.

Sort of. There are vastly more frames of reference in which the Earth's path would alter more when the sun is removed as opposed to the sun's path when the Earth is removed (for the latter there is just the one frame of reference which takes the Earth as the center of the universe). So I think arguing that the two points of view are equivalently valid is not merited.

That you can model it either way is correct. That you SHOULD model it either way is not sensible.
Eikka
2.8 / 5 (8) Feb 14, 2014
That you SHOULD model it either way is not sensible.


Why?

So I think arguing that the two points of view are equivalently valid is not merited.


What actually makes one point of view more valid than the other?
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (9) Feb 14, 2014
If one is true only under one specific set of circumstances and the other is true under all other (an infinite number) sets of circumstances. then odds are that the latter one is a better one to use.
If nothing else it prevents you from using an intentionally biased system.
Biased systems have a nasty habit of blinding one to effects of the bias - general systems that allow change of POV without qualitatively changing the results are better at giving you an idea of what are general laws and what aren't.
jakack
2.5 / 5 (2) Feb 14, 2014
How about the audience as the frame of reference. For instance, you get the question from your five year old son "does the earth circle around the sun?" You answer "yes, it sure does son!!"

Then you get the same question from a scientific foundation "does the earth circle around the sun?" You think, duh..yeah. So absurd the question is from the NSF, that you think it's a trick question and answer "no". Then with just a qualifying statement left in your head, the answer to the survey is left as an unqualified no.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2014
"does the earth circle around the sun?" You answer "yes, it sure does son!!"

Why would you lie about something like that to your 5 year old son?
Eikka
3 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2014
If one is true only under one specific set of circumstances and the other is true under all other (an infinite number) sets of circumstances. then odds are that the latter one is a better one to use.


And yet the sun rises from the east and sets in the west.

Biased systems have a nasty habit of blinding one to effects of the bias


You could argue that it's wrong to say the earth goes around the sun for the very same reason, because it prevents you from seeing the forest for the trees, which is illustrated in the general statement of the Mach's principle that lead us here in the first place:

"Local physical laws are determined by the large-scale structure of the universe."

So how is our old Newtonian understanding of the world changed in any meaningful sense if we plant the Sun, the center of our galaxy, the Earth, or any other particular object as the center of our frame of reference and hold it as more valid than something else?
xavi1974
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2014
That's a pretty bland obtuse truth that y'all are touting. *How* do you know that Earth orbits the Sun, or, indeed, anything not directly experienced- monads into your mind? Fire is ouch hot. Is there any ouch in ionizing radiation. How about evolution, any direct experience?
Most of the knowledge we have today were not learned from direct experience. The point is, they should know it unless they dropped out from school before 4th grade or even earlier.
wealy darling_
5 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2014
The article fails to cite any reference or provide a link to the study or even a link to an outside source also reporting on this, aside from mentioning that the study was done by the national science foundation. Yet, there isn't anything about this study on the NSF's website. There is no information on the demographic distribution of people surveyed, or even the geographic distribution. Both of which are important for addressing the problem. I fail to see how this article does anything besides calling U.S. citizens stupid.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2014
And yet the sun rises from the east and sets in the west.

So? Perfect example of how using a biased point of view can lead one on a false track (in this case for hundreds of thousands of years. That false track of thinking - that we're at the center of things - is still leading the majority of the people (all religious ones and then some) to false conclusions)
You could argue that it's wrong to say the earth goes around the sun

As I said: it's NOT wrong to say the sun is going around the earth - it's just not sensible to do so. Much like you can model orbits with epicycles perfectly well. It's just not sensible to do so.
So how is our old Newtonian understanding of the world changed in any meaningful sense

See above.
RichManJoe
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 14, 2014
And we let these people vote?
xavi1974
5 / 5 (1) Feb 14, 2014
How about the audience as the frame of reference. For instance, you get the question from your five year old son "does the earth circle around the sun?" You answer "yes, it sure does son!!"

Then you get the same question from a scientific foundation "does the earth circle around the sun?" You think, duh..yeah. So absurd the question is from the NSF, that you think it's a trick question and answer "no". Then with just a qualifying statement left in your head, the answer to the survey is left as an unqualified no.

The answer should either be "yes" or "it depends on the context" but never be "no".
Feldagast
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 14, 2014
Its ok there are still people that believe in socialism even after the many failed examples we have seen, yet they still want to try it again and again as it the outcome might turn out different if we try it just one more time.
Eikka
3 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2014
See above.


I don't really see where you gave one.

You're still arguing that the heliocentric universe is more sensible and more "valid" than the geocentric, completely oblivious to the fact that both are the same sort of Newtonian myopia that still pretends there's absolute points of reference in this reality.

So?


So, the sun still rises from the west whether the earth is rotating around the sun or the sun is rotating around the earth.

Arguing against what is plain to the naked eye by referring to another similiar illusion is folly, because what you should be arguing is that both are illusions to have any semblance of sincerity. Yet our public face of science is just about replacing one illusion after another as they appear.

Nobody's talking about what it's really about because that would take longer for Neil deGrasse Tyson to explain than the 10 minutes he has between commercial breaks.

OZGuy
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2014
Ok so they ran a survey. A couple of question about that.
What were the demographics of the respondents?
What was the incentive/threat if any to answer accurately?
What was the precise question asked?
When were were the repondents surveyed?
How were the respondents surveyed?

You can pretty well ensure you get the overall result you want from a survey with a bit of pre-planning.

'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics' - Mark Twain
wealy darling_
5 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2014
After doing a google search, this is the only source I can find for any of the claims made in this article:

http://www.nsf.go...7-10.pdf

As you can see, this study appears to be from 2006. There were apparently two studies done, the first in 2001 and the second in 2004. (In the U.S. As you can see, the test was given by separate orginizations and at different times in different countries.) Also, according to this table more U.S. citizens know the earth revolves around the sun than European Union citizens do. It also appears that the question about humans evolving from earlier species of animals wasn't given to everyone taking the test.

I cannot say if this is indeed the source for this story. The statistics for U.S. citizens on the evolution question taken together do indeed equal 48%, if you ignore the footnote that in the 2004 study the question wasn't given to everyone taking the test.
Jaeherys
not rated yet Feb 14, 2014
You know, all this debate about "science" is really only a debate of math and how we interpret it. Why you no hate on biology, eh!? Or chemistry? What about them dreaded soft sciences like psychology or the social sciences? Damn biologyism hurts my feelings! Where's the hate towards my profession!?

On a more serious note, I have learned that reality is more shocking than you can believe and a result like this doesn't surprise me. I bet if this survey was carried out in other countries around the world the majority of results wouldn't be all that different.

If this publication is peer-reviewed, the odds are something like this was conducted correctly or there are serious conflicts of interest. These kinds of results have too much "WOW" factor to let basic mistakes slip by. It's like trying to publish a biology article where you forget to include loading controls or internal controls. It just doesn't happen because people would laugh at you until you commit suicide.
wealy darling_
5 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2014
Discovery.com is running this story, and their source is this very page. There is a link at the bottom of their story to the details of the NSF's study, but it just leads to a 404 page. This page itself is just a copy-paste job of the original story being run by the agence-presse france. I was unable to find a link to this story from their website. This was the closest I could get:

http://www.google...61b955fd
sirchick
5 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2014
Just as many believe in cold fusion sadly... about time they fixed the US education system!
jahbless
4.3 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2014
Arguing against what is plain to the naked eye by referring to another similiar illusion is folly, because what you should be arguing is that both are illusions to have any semblance of sincerity. Yet our public face of science is just about replacing one illusion after another as they appear.

You're fighting a losing battle here champ. You are of course right. But many of the commenters on this site, all too familiar with the gross falsehoods propagated by religious dogmatists, have come to view Science simply as "the set of tools with which we dismantle religious dogmatism", and not as just another one of the innumerable modes of enquiry humans use to make sense of the world (like religion itself).

Thus they come to view Science as validated by the products of its application, and care not to examine the axiomatic foundations on which scientific discoveries are built. So it is one species of dogmatism is the outgrowth of another. It's probably always been this way.
RobertKarlStonjek
4.7 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2014
Two of the questions are incorrect:
1] "The universe began with a huge explosion" (answer true or false) The answer called for is true but the correct answer is false. The universe began with the expansion of spacetime. To explain this the classic 'raison bread' model is used.

The George Gamow model called for an explosive beginning which is why Fred Hoyle dubbed it the 'Big Bang'. But the current model (Lambda CDM) says that inflation caused by dark Energy is the main driver.

2] "It is the father's gene that decides whether the baby is a boy or a girl" (answer called for is true)

Wrong. It is the father's *chromosome* and not a gene that is responsible, and it is the presence or absence of this chromosome that is determinant of gender in about 99% of humans. The rest are 'androgen insensitive' or XY females. There is also the XXY variant that can result in a male or female.
Nik_2213
5 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2014
Weep...

I had the misfortune to attend a local writers' group for budding UK Sci-fi authors. The level of ignorance was truly terrifying.

I had to explain why a jet-aircraft's air-breathing engine would not work in space, but a rocket would. Momentum: I had to explain why you couldn't just pull the stick back and loop the loop. I had to explain that space is BIG, that our outer planets are far away, and the nearest stars to the Sun (8 light-mins) are light-years away. Zillions of stars in just our Milky Way, and galaxies like grains of sand...

I did manage to congratulate the guy who'd come up with an original star-drive-- If you bent Einstein just a little bit. I had to explain to the others that they were writing fantasy, not Sci-Fi.

At that point, the LitCrit moderator, who MAY have done a week or two of 'General Science' long, long ago, lost her temper and threw me out.
adam_russell_9615
5 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2014
Maybe they should do a survey to see how many people know that surveys are easily biased.
adam_russell_9615
not rated yet Feb 14, 2014
I did talk to an old lady that thought a half moon was caused by the earth's shadow, but I think even she knew the earth goes around the sun.
pogden297
1 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2014
52 comments on here, most of which are reacting to the headline that only 1 in 4 people knows the Earth revolves around the Sun. Yet not a single person bothered to read the brief article which would have revealed that the editor blew the headline, it is actually 3 in 4 people:

"Just 74 percent of respondents knew that the Earth revolved around the Sun, according to the results released at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Chicago.
_aby_il
not rated yet Feb 14, 2014
Pogden297. Read the headline properly "One in four Americans unaware that Earth circles Sun".

Can you spot your mistake yet?

As in "One in four Americans UNAWARE that Earth circles Sun".

If you don't know, it means not aware, another way to put the headline is "One in four Americans not aware that Earth circles Sun" I would not be surprised if you are included in the one in four
jaxFrost
5 / 5 (2) Feb 15, 2014
"With relativity, you can't even tell the difference between whether you are spinning along with the planet, or whether the entire universe is spinning around you because they both actually produce identical forces from your point of view. "

...wait, what ?

you DO understand that accelerations are, in a sense, absolute, right ? you understand that observers in ANY frame will measure SOME value of acceleration of an accelerating body, right ?

...you DO understand that the water in the bucket spins up in a vacuum universe, right ?

otherwise, you really have no business attempting to "correct" others' dearth of education in modern physics. it sure sounds to me like you learned relativity from reading news articles on phys.org.
jaxFrost
not rated yet Feb 15, 2014
well i see others pointed out that acceleration in gr cannot be erased by frame changes. this, still remains wrong:

"The George Gamow model called for an explosive beginning which is why Fred Hoyle dubbed it the 'Big Bang'. But the current model (Lambda CDM) says that inflation caused by dark Energy is the main driver."

like i saId on the other thread, both big bang and inflation are independent of lambda-cdm.

inflation is modelled by the symmetry-breaking phase transition of a scalar boson field called "inflaton"; the release of energy associated with the phase transition is balanced by the negative potential energy of gravity, which causes an effect somewhat similar to DE, leading to expansion of the spacetime...but is nonetheless completely independent of lambda, the cosmological constant, which represents de in the field equations.

big bang, of course, is completely independent of lamba-cdm or any model of the post-bang dynamics of the cosmos.
Vixolux
5 / 5 (6) Feb 15, 2014
The study is here: http://www.nsf.go...seind14/

The subset containing the details for the story is here: http://www.nsf.go...seind14/content/chapter-7/c07.pdf on page 7-23
wealy darling_
not rated yet Feb 15, 2014
Thank you vixolux!
Vviper
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2014
Looks like they did 1/4th of this survey in Chicago...
alfie_null
5 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2014
t would be a disaster of economic proportions if too many people were to be educated.

Unless they were "educated" by the govt propaganda service NPR?

NPR derives the vast majority of its funding from other sources. A relatively small, and decreasing amount comes from the government. You'd know that if you were more acquainted with the thought process.

Assuming you are an American, in you own small way, your act of making that comment recapitulates the article's observation.

Conversely, on the topic of media, if in the U.S. I want to receive cable - any type of cable feed at all - I have no choice but to pay money to companies like "fair and balanced" News Corp, run by right-wing nut cases. And consider for a moment, the relative size of NPR and News Corp.

(I'd dispute your implication that they are "govt propaganda", but that's getting off topic.)
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 15, 2014
if in the U.S. I want to receive cable - any type of cable feed at all - I have no choice but to pay money

Yes, you have a choice. You don't have to recrieve cable.
I have NO choice in paying for NPR.
I'd dispute your implication that they are "govt propaganda",

They selectively report their version of the news that protects the 'liberals'.
One recent story used the infamous Cheerios advert to accuse conservatives of racism just as the propagandists at MSNBC did.
"Ken Stern, who was NPR's chief operating officer before becoming its CEO in 2006, has said that even though the network now gets "less than 10 percent of its funding" from government, that money comes at an "enormous cost in terms of credibility, focus, and the efforts they have to do to maintain that support." "
"Juan Williams says it remains "a very ingrown, incestuous culture" "
http://www.nation...ohn-fund
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 15, 2014
"Given that only 89% of the NPR income pie comes from external sources (the rest coming from investment returns), it is not unreasonable to assert that more than 25% of NPR funds from outside sources actually comes from taxpayers. That's not an overwhelming portion of the budget, but it's a long way from two to three percent.

As annoying as I find the bias at MSNBC or the New York Times, I will respect to the end their right to be as biased as they'd like. What they do with their money and whatever funds they can convince advertisers to kick in is their own business. The same does not apply to the likes of NPR. That's your money and my money going into their coffers and funding that unbalanced message."
http://www.americ...ing.html
Don't like Fox News? Don't watch.
"Even with waning viewership, Fox News topped the cable news ratings race for the 12th consecutive year in 2013, with more total viewers than MSNBC and CNN combined. "
Lex Talonis
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2014
Stupid Americans? LOL - I deal with them every day.

This is a great science based fight... Consumer Vs. Texas Instruments.

http://corporatem...nts.html

But really stupid people are everywhere......

It's not like the USA can lay claim to being THE dumbest fucks in the universe.

ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2014
"It's ironic that the progressives in education are fond of talking about how understanding the big picture and the "process" of reaching a solution is more important the simply parroting the "right answer." I've been to more than one parents' council meeting on the theory of multiple intelligences. This seems to be forgotten when being "well-informed" is equated with intelligence. Being able to identify the president of Uzbekistan but voting for something as nebulous as "Hope and Change" is not a sign of wisdom.

Read more: http://www.americ...tOVDfMxI
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

People Massachusetts think they are so smart yet they refuse to see EBT fraud, they tolerate a state agency that allows criminals to be foster parents and kill children and they continue to vote for idiots like Ed Markey and Liz Warren.
daqddyo
5 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2014
Good Heavens!

Arguing about relative motion when it comes to the orbiting of the planets around our sun ignores that vast energy requirements for any "solar" system that does not have the sun at the focus of the planetary orbits. The Sun's gravity is great enough to provide the required centripetal force for the observed planetary motions.

In an earth "centred" system of planetary motion, the energy requirements needed to provide the required centripetal forces to force planets like Jupiter, Saturn, etc to follow the weird curved paths around the sun would be preposterous. Where would all this energy come from?

Surely, nature's way needs the least energy.

Anyway, the overall results of this survey may reflect the knowledge of the school teachers.
Czcibor
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2014
And we let these people vote?

Yes. In democracy we believe that people who fail basic science questions, have at their 18th birthday an enlightenment that allows them to answer correctly on questions requiring thorough knowledge about law, criminology, macroeconomics, foreign relations...

(To be honest I've read about religions that believe in lower number of miracles)
dogbert
2.2 / 5 (6) Feb 15, 2014
Federal involvement in the education system in America has resulted in the poor outcomes we see every day.

We now have Common Core. Give that a few years and you may have to explain what the earth and the sun are if you expect an answer at all.

You get out of education what you put into it. We are putting the federal government into it. Why is anyone surprised?
IamVal
5 / 5 (2) Feb 15, 2014

So how is our old Newtonian understanding of the world changed in any meaningful sense if we plant the Sun, the center of our galaxy, the Earth, or any other particular object as the center of our frame of reference and hold it as more valid than something else?


actually, the precession of the equinoxes and seasons coupled with projected paths of the planets make using the sun as the frame of reference much more conducive to future calculations. if you use earth as your frame of reference all other trajectories would be erratic, When using the sun ALL other trajectories are vastily simplified. it is inately more simple to measure an elipse than a tangled mess. when you make singlular recursive functions more simple you can more easily process more steps.
All physics are heuristics- A heavily simplified way of explaining things that comes 'close enough'. the fact that reality (less and less frequently) doesn't match predictions is proof we're not done yet.
AJW
1 / 5 (2) Feb 15, 2014
And how many still say in the morning "rising Sun" when they know it is the earth revolving?
Cocoa
5 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2014
@dogbert (et al). I agree with you that the government run educational system here in the U.S. sucks. The question I ask - 'is that because it is government run, or are there other factors that cause the system to suck? How you determine which educational systems are good, and which are poor is very tricky. Test scores are of course not the only measure. But if you look at that one simple metric - the best system in the world is China (another government run system) http://www.nbcnew...21733705

So - do you think there are any examples of good systems, that are government run? I do - and therefore I propose that while this topic is complex - the problem in America is much more to do with a culture of stupid. I live here - I watch the T.V. here - I talk with people here - most go to church, and most are stupid. I think we can look to other issues as well as the government to understand this issue.
Eikka
not rated yet Feb 15, 2014
much more conducive to future calculations


Yep. Some points of view can be more pragmatic for some purposes, but then your judgement of validity depends on your choice of purpose.

For the purpose of say aligning your solar panels, a geocentric understanding of the sun's movement is much easier to calculate than the other way around.
Eikka
1 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2014
In an earth "centred" system of planetary motion, the energy requirements needed to provide the required centripetal forces to force planets like Jupiter, Saturn, etc to follow the weird curved paths around the sun would be preposterous. Where would all this energy come from?


From the sun.

The planets would still be influenced by the mass of the sun, which goes around the earth. The only problem you have there is the massive tidal forces that apply to the stationary earth, but since you've defined earth to be the center of the universe then the definition of space that allows that must automatically counter the forces.

In relative space where you exist in the middle of a massive large sphere, there really is no difference you can tell between whether you are spinning, or the massive sphere rotating around the stationary you. If we say the earth is still, it equals to saying the distant stars are turning and providing the force to keep the earth still.
dogbert
2.5 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2014
Cocoa,

Our education system used to rank at the top of the world's education systems. Then the federal government became involved and our education system has declined in direct proportion to federal involvement.

When local boards run the schools, the schools prosper because the boards have an interest in the children they are teaching. When the federal government runs the schools, the schools falter because the federal government has no vested interest in those childrens' education.
Eikka
1 / 5 (2) Feb 15, 2014
...you DO understand that the water in the bucket spins up in a vacuum universe, right ?


If a universe consists of only the bucket and the water inside it, you cannot tell whether the bucket is spinning around the water or the water is spinning around inside the bucket because you have no reference point to say one of them is standing still. Therefore both situations must actually be the same thing.

Or, you could claim that there exists an absolute background to space and then tell whether the water is spinning and the bucket is not, but then you'd be introducing a third thing to this universe and it would not be the same system anymore. Your "vacuum universe" is the third object that you define to be stationary in order to solve the dilemma.

But that would invalidate general relativity that states there is no such thing as absolute background of space.

TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2014
I get the all too subtle hint of prejudice against the religious as if religion equates to being anti-science. Bottom line, it just simply is not true
Its not prejudice to read the books that religionists ascribe to which say that the sun revolves around a flat earth or that a first woman was created from the rib of a first man. The only way religionists can support science while maintaining their belief in their god, is by a peculiar form of arrogant double-think which allows them to pick and choose from both realms as they personally see fit. This is the very definition of a personal god.

Science is changing and evolving but the books never change; or if anything, they get worse as we are finding out with the NIV. The lies and ignorance are still there, the bigotry, misogyny, immorality, and violence are still there, just waiting for the proper time to be resurrected and applied.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (1) Feb 15, 2014
Back in the days when tuition for higher learning was free we did great things like getting humans to the moon and back. What buffoon looked at those institutions as a way to make money first, and an institution of higher learning second? His name was Midas, and he touched both governments and schools. But where did the "work will set you free" mentality come from? You don't work at multiple part-time, low-wage, zero-benefit jobs because you're free. You do it because you're not free. Midas knows better than to touch me—first thing I'd make is an automated vendaurant with delivery drones that provides free coffee, burgers, pizza, any custom recipe you could throw at it, oh—and all-you-can-eat education.
Cocoa
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2014
@dogbert
Then the federal government became involved and our education system has declined in direct proportion to federal involvement.


You did not address the question I posed. Are there examples of good education systems that are government run? Why does China have a better education system that the U.S?

Where do you get your information that education has declined in direct proportion to federal government involvement?

I agree with you that the more locally based decisions are made - the higher chance there will be of the system being better. It seems you are not willing to look at the whole picture - and answer the tougher questions.
dogbert
3.8 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2014
Are you American, Cocoa?

I am an American and grew up in the latter half of the 20th century. I experienced the rapid decline of the public education system in the '60's when the federal government became involved and lowered the scores needed to pass and then proceeded to dumb down the content and tests to insure that more students would pass.

When I was in junior high, the school began to recognize that many students in the 7th and 8th grades could not read at a first grade level or at all. They had been passed on to the next grade without learning anything.

"No child left behind" means all children should pass.

"Common Core" means minimal understanding and teach the test.

Everything the federal government does harms education.

We did put people on the moon, developed the Atomic bomb, became the industrial powerhouse of the world on the education we provided to our citizens prior to the 1960's.
thingumbobesquire
1 / 5 (2) Feb 15, 2014
Gee whiz. Americans are smarter than I imagined...
Cocoa
4 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2014
Are you American, Cocoa?


No - I am a Brit - living in bible belt America. I do a lot of work in American schools, as well as having friends and relatives who are teachers.

You continue to dodge the question I have asked you very directly. It is my view - that the federal government is inept - and certainly a major problem in our system - but only one part of a much bigger problem. If you have a society that does not value knowledge, and education, it is not fair to then blame schools for the stupidity of the society. Parents have to take a much higher percentage of the responsibility.

Why are you unwilling to address the question of why some other countries - that also have government run education systems, are doing so much better than us?
ryggesogn2
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2014
If you have a society that does not value knowledge, and education,

When you have a teacher's union that values political power over education and when you have a political party that values that union money over education, you get an electorate that votes for more welfare than education.
Parents who value education for their children are shut down by unions and politicians who demand alternatives to govt run schools.
david_board_14
5 / 5 (2) Feb 15, 2014
How did the EU compare? 1/3 got the question wrong. The US fared second best of the countries/regions surveyed. But that part of the story doesn't fit the story...
http://www.nsf.go.../c07.pdf
dogbert
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2014
Cocoa,

Why are you unwilling to address the question of why some other countries - that also have government run education systems, are doing so much better than us?


Why do you want me to discuss other country's education systems when I am not familiar with them?

The U.S. government is only interested in creating pliable little socialists. Perhaps China already has enough pliable little socialists and can allow them to learn? I don't know.
Cocoa
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2014
Why do you want me to discuss other country's education systems when I am not familiar with them?


Because your premise is that the problem with the U.S. educational system is federal government intervention. It makes sense to me that the existence of other systems - that also are run by a federal government - and are doing much better than we are - indicates that you do not understand the central problem. My premise is that we have a culture that does not value knowledge and education - and the existence of other countries that are doing much better in that department - may support that premise.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2014
view Science simply as "the set of tools with which we dismantle religious dogmatism"

@jahbless
SCIENCE is about empirical data. Facts. Proof. Defining the universe around us. The WHAT and HOW of reality.

Religious dogma is about controlling people. Making sure everyone that believes in this particular set knows how to act.

faith is about belief in the absence of proof.

There are three separate things in your argument with no real common ground. Philosophy falls mostly under faith. ANY doctrine is for setting rules, which is about controlling people.

SCIENCE is something that is definitive. It is amoral. Only in the application thereof is there morality attached
Thus they come to view Science as validated by the products of its application, and care not to examine the axiomatic foundations on which scientific discoveries are built

you are confusing technology based upon science with science itself.
jimbo92107
4 / 5 (1) Feb 15, 2014
These questions reveal the difference between what a person needs to know, versus what a person chooses to believe.

I need to know how to use a cellphone, steer a car, work a faucet, etc. I can operate in the world believing that a lot of things are essentially magical.

It's just like Aldus Huxley's "Brave New World." You've got Alphas that know science, Betas that know how to fix stuff, and Deltas to sweep floors. Each class of citizen has its place in a sustainable society. All this survey does is make a bunch of Deltas feel bad. Take some Soma, Deltas! Be happy!
dogbert
3.3 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2014
Cocoa,

Since you admittedly are not American and did not witness first hand the decline of America's education system at the hand of the federal government, your viewpoint is lacking in actual knowledge of our system.

You are actually correct that there is a subculture which does not value knowledge and education. You get that when you have families where every living generation has been on government welfare. The federal government is not restricted to harming the education system only from within the education system.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 15, 2014
other country's education systems

@Cocoa
@dogbert
here is an interesting side note to think about.
The DOD school system is completely government run, but is malleable. It usually adopts the curriculum of the country that it is stationed in. (DOD is Department of Defense).
From 1970 thru 1990 if you went to school in the US school overseas at the militarily base, your education was usually more closely modelled on the local area. In Japan, you would start learning algebra basics in grade 4, for instance.
In Germany and Japan, the classes that the freshmen (High school) took in DOD schools was equivalent to senior level courses in FL, WA, and TX
This is something I experienced

there is much to be desired with public education system
there are larger issues than just gov't involvement.
Religion in the bible belt, for one (can you say Creationists?)
public approval of stupidity (Carey, Jersey shore, jackass the movie)

Culture affects education more than we think
see China/Japan
russell_russell
1 / 5 (2) Feb 15, 2014
As children you pretend .... you shared a make believe universe. You created (pretended there were) absolutes when needed. I am "unaware" of the universe you created. Is it consistent? Without contradiction? Perfect? Never updated or outdated?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 15, 2014
Since you admittedly are not American and did not witness first hand the decline of America's education system at the hand of the federal government, your viewpoint is lacking in actual knowledge of our system

@dogbert
I probably fall into this category as well... sort of.
I AM American, born in US... but...I spent most of my life overseas.
I can only talk about experiences in certain US schools in Washington, Oregon, Florida, Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, Georgia, New York, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Alaska and DC.
Homunculus
4 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2014
@dogbert: You should count yourself among the culture of ignorance. The Federal Gov't only cares about creating obedient Socialists? Yeah, you're not a completely unhinged nitwit brimming with hyperbole.

Arguments can be made about the merits, or lack thereof, of various federal programs, but to say, "education declined because of Federal intervention," is complete hogwash and relies on one cherry-picking.

No Child Left Behind doesn't mean "just graduate anyone." As you, yourself, said, kids that were not proficient were still passed even before the Feds tried to institute standards. NCLB is actually a performance metric for under-performing schools. Common Core is a set of standards that kids should be able to meet by certain grade levels. You know, like being able to do long-division by the time they graduate 5th grade.
Homunculus
4 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2014
@dogbert: The truth is that American education had been on a decline long before NCLB and Commmon Core and the NEA were ever even created.

You talk about the moon landing as proof? You dumbass. You do know that the vast majority of knowledge needed to get to the moon was from Einstein and other FOREIGN scientists that came to the USA, right? The only really notable USA scientists was Openheimer, who the McCarthy moron-brigade later investigated as a communist and then ruined his career.

Also, your "if you didn't see it first hand then you can't know it" argument is beyond idiotic. It's the drivel that Ken Ham used against Bill Nye in their recent debate. No one has seen the Ice Age that gave rise to the Woolly Mammoths, but yet people know it happened, and have some good understandings of it. You don't have to personally witness something in order to understand it. That's a completely fallacious argument.
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2014
Homunculus,

Thanks for the condescending commentary. You put yourself in your place.

Of course, scientific knowledge was not invented in America. Our success with rockets was directly related to German scientists. But we did have many well educated people who were able to build the equipment and systems which allowed us to put a man on the moon.

Our industrial success was due in large part to an excellent education system.

In the 1060's, our federal government began to degrade that education system. I was in the public schools at the time and witnessed it first hand.

No, you don't have to be somewhere to have knowledge of something which happened in that place, but you obviously are not aware of the deliberate degradation of America's education system by our federal government.

I provided you with that information so that you can know what happened somewhere when you were not there. You can, of course, choose to ignore that information.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (2) Feb 15, 2014
In the 1060's, our federal government began to degrade that education system. I was in the public schools at the time and witnessed it first hand.


You meant 1960's....
Discipline was one of the first things to go.
Our HS principle in the 70s wouldn't allow a teacher to give an 'F'. Graduation and social promotion was more important than learning.
Today it is all about funding. Schools get as many 'students' as they can on govt supported breakfasts, lunches, and is some are now promoting supper.
When I sent my kids to a charter school, I overheard teachers from the regular public school complaining they were loosing funds to the charter school.
My grandfather, born in 1910 and graduated 8th grade knew more that most HS school 'graduates' today.
Cocoa
4 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2014
@dogbert
You get that when you have families where every living generation has been on government welfare.


I think you show a very ugly side when you immediately jump to blaming one group of people - without trying to get a really complex understanding of the multidimensional problem. You say that I am not qualified to comment on this topic - as I did not live the issue. I would disagree. Both of my kids attended public school here in the U.S. - and got a great education. They both have masters degrees - and are very successful adults. What is the explanation for this - if you are correct - and the system is crap? Well - we always emphasized education, and supported the guys in every way we could. We never missed a parent teacher conference - or a school performance that the kids were in. Relatives who are teachers - some in inner city schools - report they often only get maybe 5% of the parents come to conferences. Is that the fault of the Federal government? Cont
Cocoa
4 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2014
cont - Last week I was listening to an interview on NPR with a young man from a wealthy suburb in Maryland. He is a recovering drug addict - and reported that during his high school years - most of his peers were focused on partying - doing drugs - and not interested in school. Is that the fault of the federal government? He said that any kind of drug you wanted to take was readily available at their parties. Overdosing was common - because people did not realize the problem of mixing drugs - and how it lowered your tolerance to your main drug. Heroin was everywhere. Is it fair to blame the government if these kids did not get a good education? Our world has big problems - and simplistic thinking does not help in terms of looking for viable solutions. I actually agree with you on the issue of welfare dependence - but think it is simplistic to target one group - without a more complex understanding of the issues.
dogbert
2 / 5 (1) Feb 15, 2014
Cocoa,

My children have also done well. Their success is not so much a reflection of the public schools as it is a reflection of their hard work and study.

Like ryggesogn2, my grandfather only went to the 8th grade and was better educated than I was in 12 years. He could do math in his head faster than I could do it with a slide rule.

Our public schools really have been deliberately degraded.

And 50 years of welfare have removed even the desire to excel in many people.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2014
most of his peers were focused on partying - doing drugs - and not interested in school. Is that the fault of the federal government?


Yes. Why won't public schools kick out drug addicts and students who refuse to learn?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2014
"My interest in Bill Ayers began a few years ago when I learned about his career as a "Distinguished Professor of Education." In reality he was working to destroy everything that was good about our education system. Ayers, after escaping punishment in 1980, used his position at the University of Illinois at Chicago, to spread his revolutionary ideas throughout the educational system--in the classes he taught, the books and articles he wrote, the conferences he attended, the dissertation committees he sat on, and the political connections he fostered with Barack Obama and Arne Duncan on the Annenberg Challenge."
"The Department of Education bragged about Arne Duncan's speech at the AERA conference, which appeared to be devoted entirely to sessions advocating social justice and not academics. They did not mention Ayers."
townhall.com/columnists/marygrabar/2013/05/15/bill-ayers-bringing-down-america-destroying-education-n1596641/page/full
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2014
"But if teachers fail to educate children, they don't lose one dime, no matter how much those children and the country lose by their failure. If the schools waste precious time indoctrinating children, instead of educating them, that's the children's problem and the country's problem, but not the teachers' problem.

Thomas Sowell, "Different decisions... and results," 7 June 2011 "
"the great task of the school...[is] to counteract and transform... the influence of home and church.

John Dewey (1859–1952) "
"there could have been no evil greater than the federal Department of Education. The creation of this was a political payoff of Jimmy Carter to the teachers' unions."
http://www.friesi...blic.htm
caseym
4 / 5 (1) Feb 15, 2014
Well,most immediately, the earth revolves around the moon (and the moon around the earth). The earth moon system revolves around the sun, but if any of those 1/4th said "the moon" they were right, too. Perhaps more right.
rwinners
2 / 5 (1) Feb 15, 2014
Ths is really hard to believe. I'd like a second study.
Cocoa
5 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2014
@ dogbert
My children have also done well. Their success is not so much a reflection of the public schools as it is a reflection of their hard work and study.


And so you make my point for me dogbert - a students success, or lack of success is not the responsibility of the school system - it is the responsibility of the wider society. My (and your) children went to the same school as the drug addicted drop outs who are now dead. Their success can be attributed to many factors - a school that gave them the resources to learn, a family and community that supported their learning. Our society is in crisis - and you and Ryggy hunker down in your stupid little ideological fortress, and think you have all the answers. You don't - neither does any one - but we will not solve this crisis by bunkering down in ideological fortresses, and not understanding the more complex issues we face.
Cocoa
5 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2014
@dogbert
my grandfather only went to the 8th grade and was better educated than I was in 12 years.


Dobert - why was your gandfather so much better educated than you? My children are much better educated than any of their grandparents. We have resources available today far in excess of anything our grandparents had (libraries, internet, computers, well equipped schools, etc.) We taught our children every bit as much as the schools did - they were sight reading words by age 2 and reading by age 4. I do not blame the schools - I am grateful for their support. Perhaps you were not given the family support my children were - and now want to blame the schools for your failure.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 16, 2014
And we let these people vote?

Yep, and look who is the POTUS!
nuffin
5 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2014
It's always so painfully ironic that the very people who resent science and its methods do so using a platform built by science and its methods, most likely also sitting on something crafted by science and its methods, carrying about their lives as if evidence and reason do, in fact, apply. Looking forward to all of the incredible technologies and abilities yet-to-be unveiled by the religious and philosophically transcendent camps using their "alternate ways of knowing". Such rubbish.
nunov_yurbiznez
not rated yet Feb 16, 2014
All,
This topic is not up for debate. Nor is evolution. The "theories" of gravity and evolution are around the MECHANISM of these phenomena, which are up for debate. Their existence and the grand-view of how they work are just not up for debate.
End your ignorance.
Jonseer
not rated yet Feb 16, 2014
And we let these people vote?

Yep, and look who is the POTUS!

48% didn't know humans evolved from a more primitive species.....about the same amount who voted for Romney.

So we can thank the science true believers for the current President.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2014
Our society is in crisis -

Yes, thanks to 'progressives' who have been destroying our US society for over 100 years and socialists who have been doing so for thousands of years.
I do not blame the schools -

When the institutions we create fail, or are hijacked, who is to blame?
not understanding the more complex issues we face.

I do understand the issues and they are not that complex: socialists want power to control people.
Ideology is important. It is important to have standards, to have a point of reference and to understand what has changed and why.
eightdegreeswest
3 / 5 (2) Feb 16, 2014
I wonder does it ever occur to people in Red states and poor southern states that for the most part, Democrat/Blue states, where Education and science is respected are also, for the most part, the richer for that and it is they who attract the high tech jobs and manufacturing opportunities.... It is scary to know that such an ill educated country like the USA, has the means to destroy us all in a thrice .....
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2014
"And what kind of dolt would think the United States does not benefit from having rich people around."
" According to Gallup, while 80 percent of Republicans think the country benefits from having a class of wealthy Americans, and while 59 percent of independents feel that way, a measly 52 percent of Democrats agree that the United States benefits from the rich."
" I think it's fair to surmise based on the Gallup numbers that Republicans are the smartest Americans, that independents come in second, and that 46 percent of Democrats are too stupid to vote.

The bad news is a lot of them do. In fact, without the "stupid vote" Mitt Romney would win in a landslide."
- See more at: http://www.bernar...13R.dpuf
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2014
it is they who attract the high tech jobs and manufacturing opportunities


"After actively campaigning in Chattanooga for two years, the UAW must now withdraw from all organizing efforts aimed at the Tennessee plant for at least a year.

Conservative groups, who had warned that a union takeover would discourage other businesses from moving to Tennessee, applauded the workers' decision after the votes were counted Friday night."
"Chattanooga understood unionization would cost them hard-earned dollars, result in the loss of their individuality and imperil their future,"

Read more: http://dailycalle...tUMo0egK

"Remington Outdoor Co., previously known as the Freedom Group, expects to announce a major expansion to a new facility in Huntsville, Ala., "
http://blogs.mili...arscout/

dogbert
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2014
Cocoa,
Dobert - why was your gandfather so much better educated than you?


I told you. He went to school before the system was degraded by the federal government.

He understood algebra, geometry, trigonometry and calculus with his 8th grade education. Did you understand these things in the 8th grade? Did your children?

When I would struggle with something, Grandad would say "Son, are you stupid? Or don't they teach you anything?" Then he would quickly show me what I needed to do..

ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2014
Here is a great comment from Silvanus Thompson, author of Calculus Made Easy:
"Some calculus-tricks are quite easy. Some are enormously difficult. The fools who writ the textbooks of advanced mathematics-and they are mostly clever fools-seldom take the trouble to show you how easy the easy calculations are. On the contrary, they seem to desire to impress you with their tremendous cleverness by going about it the most difficult way."
Calculus Made Easy, 2nd ed, 1914.

100 years ago it was noted that too many teachers were more interested in promoting themselves than teaching.
Another example is to look at the criticism popular scientists, like Sagan, received for being too simplistic.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2014
"Croly, a founder of the New Republic magazine, held the average American in contempt and wanted a government led by enlightened ­experts. Mission accomplished.

Siegel, of St. Francis College and the Manhattan Institute, has a keen eye for hypocrisy. He twins liberalism's hunger for "moral deregulation" with its appetite for overregulating everything else."
"From the dumbing down of education to extreme environmentalism, from anti-family poverty programs to free-speech curbs on campuses, the excesses of our times are laid out like the pieces of a puzzle. It is a clear-eyed vision of how we got to this troubled place.

Sadly, the damage continues. "
http://nypost.com...t-roots/
Protoplasmix
3 / 5 (2) Feb 16, 2014
Rygg:
The Repubs were holding the reins for the past few decades. We got tricked into voting for wars that weren't necessary because we were provided with deceptive interpretations of "secret" intel, we have a great recession, we have people who are homeless but not because we can't build houses fast enough, we have a banking industry that not only failed to facilitate the American Dream of owning a home but rather increased the homeless problem with foreclosures while lining the pockets of their CEOs with tax-payer bailouts, we finally said hand over the reins to an incredibly articulate, intelligent, highly educated, forward-looking Dem but the Repubs refused and damn-near steered us over a fiscal cliff, and they insist "if you like not having a doctor you can keep not having a doctor" is the best way to provide healthcare.

See more—Tom Perkins thinks if you pay a million dollars in taxes you should get a million votes:
http://money.cnn....fortune/
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2014
He understood algebra, geometry, trigonometry and calculus with his 8th grade education. Did you understand these things in the 8th grade?

@dogbert
I hate to point this out but you are assuming that he learned everything he knew by the 8th grade when that is unrealistic.
IMHO- He may SAY he learned it, BUT it is more likely that he touched upon the basics in school, then learned later on in life by experience how to be more adept (common among older generations)

then there is the issue of family size
Where was he and how many siblings did he have.
Larger families tend to do better education wise back in those days
There was also the shared classroom as well, so where did he go to school? a large urban school with a room for each grade or a small rural school with all grades in one room?

there are many mitigating factors there, and I believe that is one thing that Cocoa was pointing out...
no one stands on their own with regard to education.
fedup
3 / 5 (1) Feb 16, 2014
http://www.theatl.../283864/

The entire survey and in the end we are not as dumb as most in the world including the european unoin since only 65% of them knew the correct answer'
ryggesogn2
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2014
The Repubs were holding the reins for the past few decades.

Hayek wrote The Road to Serfdom for socialists of all parties, which includes the Republicans.
we have a banking industry that not only failed to facilitate the American Dream of owning a home but rather increased the homeless problem with foreclosures while lining the pockets of their CEOs with tax-payer bailouts,


Thanks to 'progressive' institutions like The Federal Reserve, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, FDIC, CRA, ....
forward-looking Dem

Carter pushed the CRA. Barnie Frank refused to address the failures of Fannie Mae...prominent democrats have made millions heading up one of the govt sponsored 'enterprises' like Freddie and Fannie.
Tom Perkins thinks if you pay a million dollars in taxes you should get a million votes:[q/]
He has one point, to vote you must pay taxes.
We now have millions who pay no taxes and vote to have millions redistributed to them.
Cocoa
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 16, 2014
dogbert
He understood algebra, geometry, trigonometry and calculus with his 8th grade education. Did you understand these things in the 8th grade? Did your children?


I did not - but that is a mute point right? Being that I went to school in England - and my personal education was crappy. The bigger point you fail to respond to - is that my children's grandparents went to public school in the U.S. - prior to the time that you assert the federal government destroyed education. My children went to public school - and have a better education than any of their grandparents. So do you see how your premise is flawed?

I am not arguing that the federal government is not a screw up. It is. However - education is far more complex than you want to acknowledge - and despite a very flawed system - my kids got a world class education - because they had a supportive family environment. What is ur excuse for not learning as much as ur grandfather - despite having more opportunity?
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 16, 2014
because they had a supportive family environment.


So what does the screwed up school system do to support families?
'Progressives' attack people of faith, NEA's plundered dues fund 'liberals' that promote policies to destroy families.
And families who want out of a crappy school system can't get out because teacher unions and politicians refuse to allow them to have a choice.
labman57
3.5 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2014
Is it due to a lack of science education ... or simply willful ignorance -- i.e., a dogmatic denial of anything that conflicts with an ultra-orthodox interpretation of the Bible?
jus_wundrin
1.3 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2014
More products of the gubment skool system.

Those of you blaming religious fundies are just grasping a very thin straws. Just the statistic of the number homeschoolers vs. the number of gubment schoolers, would put the 1:4 ratio out the window. I know many home school families that would laugh at the geocentric model, let alone teach it. Besides, NO where in the Bible does it mention the geocentric model of the solar system.

BTW, when did the THEORY of evolution become fact?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2014
gubment skool system

@jus_wundrin
its "gubmint", not "ment". Yur spelin is atroeshus...attrowshis...realy bad!
Those of you blaming religious fundies are just grasping a very thin straws

Not really
religious "fundies" are pushing a version of faith called "creation science" by them. They ADDED the science part to give the impression that it is legitimate, but it is NOT science-

happening right here where I live... just got thrown out of court again as not being science
when did the THEORY of evolution become fact?

if you are going to argue on a science site, you had better become conversant in science terminology

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation

https://en.wikipe...c_theory

As pointed out above, the issue is multi-faceted and has roots in our culture and cant be attributed to just ONE thing
ubavontuba
3.8 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2014
One in four Americans unaware that Earth circles Sun
This isn't correct. The earth does not "circle" the sun, but rather the earth orbits the sun.

The difference? The earth's orbit is not exactly circular. And when you take into account the the entire solar system and earth's relative motion within the universe, the earth's path begins to look like some sort of crazy dance!

Sure, maye I'm being a weenie about it, but if you're going to point fingers at others for their ignorance, be prepared to be pointed to yourself.

Protoplasmix
3.5 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2014
Speaking of education:
We're taught it simply isn't practical for everyone to participate directly in the democratic process, and that's why we instead elect someone to represent us. But increasingly at the state level we're seeing various issues presented on a ballot measure for the people to vote on directly, because the elected representatives failed repeatedly to actually represent the will of the people. If we were to do likewise at the federal level, we would expeditiously move towards a more educated and informed electorate, towards a truer democracy, and towards a more perfect union. Anybody have a problem with that?
ronocca
5 / 5 (5) Feb 16, 2014
How can anyone come to and register to this site and not understand what a theory is?
ab3a
3 / 5 (1) Feb 16, 2014
Think about how the survey was conducted, and who has the time to answer stupid questions like this. I usually hang up on such nonsense, if I bother answering at all.

This survey means little. And opinions on this survey mean even less.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (1) Feb 16, 2014
How can anyone come to and register to this site and not understand what a theory is?

The cool pictures at the top of the articles? One of the unfortunate 1 in 4 mentioned in the headline? Not sure I'd question it—going by the swift and accurate response, as is usually the case, they came to the right place.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2014
Think about how the survey was conducted, and who has the time to answer stupid questions like this. I usually hang up on such nonsense, if I bother answering at all.

This survey means little. And opinions on this survey mean even less.

Wow, you just took the time to respond to something you regard as nonsense, and then give an opinion that opinions on it mean even less. Impressive.
MarkmBha
5 / 5 (1) Feb 17, 2014
I was once told by an American university student that Canada is a state by New York!
Osiris1
3 / 5 (2) Feb 17, 2014
Now we know that many, many teapartyretardedrepublicans were included in the survey sample! Good test of teapartyhood: the above question...and a couple others. First, if they believe the earth is flat,rests on the backs of four elephants, they might be teapartiers! Second, if they believe that the earth is less than 6000 years old, they might be teapartyidiots! Third, if they believe in the 'Alley Oop' scenario...that dinosaurs were domesticated by cavemen...then that is a pretty good indication they are rednekk republicans....LOL
ThomasQuinn
5 / 5 (3) Feb 17, 2014
Summary of this article: there are a lot of people who have next to no knowledge of the world they live in. That is not news, it is the single greatest continuity in human history. Painful fact: the vast majority of people are ignorant because they don't care enough not to be.
Timelord
1 / 5 (2) Feb 17, 2014
Exactly this is what happened to the human race.
Nobody knows (anymore)
Nobody cares

Everybody is addicted to the binary systems.
Everybody follows the 'leader' , like lemmings ending in death or failure.
CreepyD
5 / 5 (1) Feb 17, 2014
A survey of 2200 people is a stupidly small sample when you have over 300 million people living in the US.
I do know someone very religious though, and if anything scientific about evolution or science in general conflicts with their "knowledge", it's simply "wrong" because the bible said otherwise - no matter the amount of evidence provided to the contrary.
It's frustrating to say the least.

An extreme example I would hope.
Osteta
Feb 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Feb 17, 2014
completely oblivious to the fact that both are the same sort of Newtonian myopia that still pretends there's absolute points of reference in this reality.

One is just less myopic than the other. (And the 'no absolute points of reference' is even less myopic than those two). Depending on the context you're in it is SENSIBLE to use one model or the other.
E.g. when talking about stuff on Earth (and doing calculations) it is sensible to look at the Earth as static. Wehn talking about the solar system it is sensible to talk about the sun as its center. But there is no issue where it is sensible to talk about the sun revolving around the Earth as opposed to the Earth revolving about the sun.
plaasjaapie
5 / 5 (1) Feb 17, 2014
What is the problem here? One in four Americans has an IQ under 90, too. :-/
ThomasQuinn
not rated yet Feb 17, 2014
What is the problem here? One in four Americans has an IQ under 90, too. :-/


Simple statistics tells us that 50% of all people will score below 100, simply because that is the average. Standard deviation then gives us about 25.2% who score 90 or below. That's not simply for Americans, but for every population.
JarinArenos
not rated yet Feb 17, 2014
I love the pedantic dithering regarding relativity of people who have taken a single semester of college physics.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (1) Feb 17, 2014
That's not simply for Americans, but for every population.

Yeah. But the 100 of one population isn't the same as the 100 of another population.

Of course when you add the qualifier 'american' to 'IQ below 90' things get scary.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Feb 17, 2014
towards a truer democracy, and towards a more perfect union. Anybody have a problem with that?

Yes.
There is no limit on the power of a majority to abuse, plunder, murder the minority.

Profissimo
5 / 5 (1) Feb 17, 2014
100 is the median, not the average.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (1) Feb 17, 2014
I love the pedantic dithering regarding relativity of people who have taken a single semester of college physics.

I may be conflating the stress energy tensor with failure of simultaneity at a distance here, but if upon first learning 'E=mc^2', you are not inspired to dither on about it to anyone who will listen, then theoretical physics may not be your strong suit.
Protoplasmix
3 / 5 (2) Feb 17, 2014
towards a truer democracy, and towards a more perfect union. Anybody have a problem with that?

Yes.
There is no limit on the power of a majority to abuse, plunder, murder the minority.

Actually the minority is protected, equally, from the majority, by the strong set of mutual guarantees we know as the constitution. Erm, on paper anyway.
So Rygg, please consider the old adage about the effect of absolute power and that our founding fathers, out of concern for that, proposed that the government should have three main branches, to balance the power and check the corruption. I'm pointing out we can improve upon that, and we need to improve it by all accounts, by divesting the power further to the people—truly a government of the people. With the improvements in technology, we're expressing our votes on major issues on a daily basis in the new social media, so a more hands-on approach to self-governance is now more practical.
gculpex
5 / 5 (1) Feb 17, 2014
What is the problem here? One in four Americans has an IQ under 90, too. :-/


Simple statistics tells us that 50% of all people will score below 100, simply because that is the average. Standard deviation then gives us about 25.2% who score 90 or below. That's not simply for Americans, but for every population.

Well for one, me, I'm glad I'm not under 90. except in age.
David_Govett
2.3 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2014
Most American teachers are Democrats.
Kids are now politicized instead of being taught information that was considered basic a couple of generations ago.
TegiriNenashi
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 18, 2014
Remarkable: they took taxpayer's money, and defecated back onto them with this kind of "research".
ThomasQuinn
4 / 5 (1) Feb 18, 2014
100 is the median, not the average.


It would appear that you are right. I should add that I'm not a native speaker of English, and in my language (Dutch) the term 'median' is rarely used. In defense of my original point: it would seem that the average IQ score is not far from 100.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2014
Most American teachers are Democrats.

No surprise there. Gotta have a brain to taech.
kevin01
5 / 5 (1) Feb 18, 2014
"this is really hard to believe. I'd like to see the actual question"

The survey is at:

http://www.nsf.go.../c07.pdf

The question was "Does the Earth go around the Sun, or does the Sun go around the Earth?".

Even more scary was they asked the same question in the EU in 2005, and only 66% got the right answer.
aksdad
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2014
As kevin01 pointed out, not only did people in the EU do worse, but so did every other country and region in the survey except South Korea (86% right). Maybe there's a problem with the wording. It's not that difficult to mix up possible answers "a. Earth goes around the Sun" and "b. Sun goes around the Earth" especially if you're hurrying.

See pg. 7-23 (Table 7-8) of http://www.nsf.go.../c07.pdf
adave
4 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2014
Since I am a native born Kentuckian, I might see the the education problem up close. The school house and classroom is dangerous and outdated from my perspective. Once a student is left behind they will never catch up. People are taught failure from which they will not recover. The dwindling minority support the majority. The quality of life drives political and social change to the negative. Lack of common knowledge is a symptom of game playing, an internet environment and other substitutes for reality. The ignorant are enslaved more easily than the educated.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Feb 20, 2014
Actually the minority is protected, equally, from the majority, by the strong set of mutual guarantees we know as the constitution. Erm, on paper anyway.


A constitution means nothing if it is not enforced.
The democrat governor and atty general of VA refuse to defend a state constitutional amendment.
bearly
2 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2014
Must be the same ones who voted for oduma and think that odumacare is good for us.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2014
"Seven elementary school teachers in Fallsburg, N.Y. remain on the job after heroin and needles were found in a faculty bathroom."
"Police wanted to drug test eight employees seen entering the Benjamin Cosor Elementary School bathroom before the drugs were discovered. They initially agreed but then all but one refused to take tests at the advice of their union."
http://foxnewsins...in-found
meinfrankenmind
3 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2014
And nearly one-hundred percent of people commenting on his article are unaware that this is a fact that should not matter to anybody.
Bonia
Mar 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Cocoa
5 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2014
@Bonia - perhaps I read you wrong - but it sounds like you are advocating ignorance. Don't you think we benefit as a society - if we raise the general level of education?
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2014
Some more facts from the above study, conveniently not mentioned by phys.org due to their liberal bias .....

Liberals are less likely to know that the earth orbits the sun than conservatives,... and by even a larger margin, democrats generally are less likely to know the earth orbits the sun, than republicans.

Conservative republicans are significantly less likely to believe that astrology is scientific than liberal democrats.

....
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2014

.....

"In 2012 a majority of Democrats (51 percent) could not correctly answer both that the Earth goes around the Sun and that this takes a year. Republicans fare a bit better, with only 38 percent failing to get both correct." - Washington Post

While a remarkable 2/3rds of republicans don't believe in evolution, mainly due to evangelicalism beliefs,... 34% of liberal democrats don't believe in evolution either.

Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2014
I like how Phys.Org titles the article,.. "Americans unaware...", as if to support the fallacy that Americans in particular, are ignorant. Of course the study was done by an American institution of Americans, and did not make comparisons to other nations.

@Bonia - perhaps I read you wrong - but it sounds like you are advocating ignorance. Don't you think we benefit as a society - if we raise the general level of education?


If "we" raise the general level of education? Who is "we"? You mean the government. Is that not what public education was for? Is the above study not indicative of the failure of the government run public education system, despite wasting nearly an infinite sum of money?

Personal accountability. If one is not interested in a particular subject, they will not learn it. If they can go about their lives without such lack of knowledge effecting them, they will do so. Unfortunately, the degenerate culture embraced by liberals, do not shame ignorance.
Cocoa
5 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
You mean the government.


That we - was meant as a general statement - as in 'all of us' No - I do not think the government is - or should be - the primary agent of education. I actually think that the government does a very poor job of education - and that private schools will always do a better job. I simply support the idea of an educated society vs an uneducated society.

That being said - due to my work - I am very aware of the poor level of education in America today. I think the reasons for this are complex. Understanding the poverty trap is a very important part of this. No easy solutions. Our media is also a huge part of the problem.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
How to solve AGW via government regulation and social engineering, when they can't even teach children that the earth revolves around the sun?! This colossal failure of government is in turn a failure of liberal mentality itself, as liberals primarily tend to seek government solutions.

I am very aware of the poor level of education in America today. I think the reasons for this are complex. Understanding the poverty trap is a very important part of this. No easy solutions. Our media is also a huge part of the problem.


I think it is due primarily to a degenerating cultural. The political far left abhors competition, winners and losers. Their campaigns against "inequality", promoting perpetual racial victimization and 'institutional racism', the expansion of the welfare state to crisis levels, increasing the minimum wage,.... does not shame failure, but rather excuses it.
Cocoa
4 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
I think it is due primarily to a degenerating cultural.


That statement is highly simplistic. You imply that things use to be better - but now they are degenerating. Ask a slave who worked in the fields 200 years ago, or someone suffering under the peonage system 100 years ago if things are not better today. Your hyper-politicization is a real problem for me. I see the problems that can occur from both sides of the political divide. Yes the welfare system is a huge problem. Yes free markets are much more efficient than centralized systems. But free markets have excesses, and need oversight. Poor, uneducated people are not going to break the shackles of their poverty trap without supports. I see your worldview as very childlike. 'Liberals bad, conservatives good.'
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2014
Actually, it is the liberal mentality that is childlike, in desiring to "fix" problems without regard for unintended consequences.

Poor, uneducated people are not going to break the shackles of their poverty trap without supports


When poverty is made easier to bear, by endlessly expanding "supports" and manufactoring inequalities "issues" instead of shaming degerate behavior, it weakens the motivation to break those shackles.

When the welfare system expands beyond the bounds of the governments ability to regulate it against fraud and abuse, it causes unintended consequences. Liberals advocate removing consequences of poor choice and behavior, and supplanting them with governement dependency.

Ask a slave who worked in the fields 200 years ago, or someone suffering under the peonage system 100 years ago if things are not better today.


Ask any caveman if he was better off than a slave. Ask any Jew in 1940's Germany if he was better off than a slave 200 years ago.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2014
You imply that things use to be better - but now they are degenerating.


Actually, that is not what I meant. I meant a sub-culture that embraces degenerating elements.
Cocoa
4 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
Actually, it is the liberal mentality that is childlike


Perhaps - you will get no argument from me - that centralized - top down solutions - are ineffective, and often have unintended consequences. What you happily dance around - is your own child like statements - that do not offer solutions, but simplistic analysis of the problems. Poverty is a deep, intransigent problem. I believe that the greatest chance of solving the problem of poverty is if we all work together - to create a society that values education, science, and mutual respect. I don't think the problems will come with big government programs, but with a major shift in our whole broken culture. I do not know how that shift is brought about. I try to have constructive input on sites like Physorg - but one of the biggest problems of our culture - is the dominance of the ignorant trolls - who do not offer solutions - just childish politicizations.
Cocoa
4 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
I think it is due primarily to a degenerating cultural.


How does this not imply that things use to be better, but now they are getting worse?

I see society as complex. Some groups would probably say that things are much better today than they were 100 years ago. Others would bemoan the degeneration of the culture. I just know that it is broken. I taught a college class a couple of years ago - and was staggered by the lack of education these college students had. I see the poverty of the society. Huge numbers dependent on welfare, food stamps, etc. The values are hideous. People with nothing - but a shiny new Samsung Galaxy note. People earning minimum wage (about $300 a week)- but with a $150 a month cell phone plan. Yelling - 'liberals are bad - conservatives are good' - does not offer constructive solutions.
ubavontuba
4.3 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2014
A centrist approach historically works best. It's the fine tuning between left and right which keeps things on track.
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2014
I believe that the greatest chance of solving the problem of poverty is if we all work together - to create a society that values education, science, and mutual respect.


This is useless pie in the sky childish dreaming, with no concrete solutions offered.

I don't think the problems will come with big government programs, but with a major shift in our whole broken culture. I do not know how that shift is brought about.


Then you admit you have no actual solutions.

I try to have constructive input on sites like Physorg - but one of the biggest problems of our culture - is the dominance of the ignorant trolls - who do not offer solutions


What happened to 'mutual respect' all of a sudden? You call me an "ignorant troll", while you fail to understand the political difference between liberalism and conservatism in relation to the problem, and while I have offered solutions above while you have admitted you have none.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2014
Of course the study was done by an American institution of Americans, and did not make comparisons to other nations

@Noumenon
there are links above in the comments to the whole study
( http://www.nsf.go...seind14/ )
& ( http://www.nsf.go...7-10.pdf )
it was international
we actually fared quite well

read the studies... it might take some time
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2014
I think it is due primarily to a degenerating cultural.

How does this not imply that things use to be better, but now they are getting worse?


I did not argue that it didn't imply that, as evidently it did imply that to you, however, I corrected my wording subsequently,....."I meant a sub-culture that embraces degenerating elements."
Noumenon
3 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2014
Of course the study was done by an American institution of Americans, and did not make comparisons to other nations

@Noumenon
there are links above in the comments to the whole study
( http://www.nsf.go...seind14/ )
it was international
we actually fared quite well

read the studies... it might take some time


Your 2nd link is from 2006. The above study uses 2012 data from National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago. The above Phys.Org and the Washington Post, as well as the two sources I cited above, make no mention of international comparisons.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2014
... Your 2nd link is from a different study done in 2006, and the data table 7-10 (2006) that you linked to does not match the data table 7-10 (2014) of the relevant study being discussed now. Read the studies, it might take some time.
Bonia
Mar 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Cocoa
4 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
What happened to 'mutual respect' all of a sudden? You call me an "ignorant troll"


I was not calling you an ignorant troll - I no longer respond to the trolls. There I am talking about Ryggy, Uba, Free, Antigoracle - perhaps a few others.

Then you admit you have no actual solutions.


I admit that I cannot solve the world's problems. I think that as a species - we are in the process of finding those solutions. I have some ideas on an individual level - but that is not for a Physorg environment. I do not see any solutions from you - only simplifications - 'all liberals are bad.'

The solutions I am most encouraged by are technological things - such as alternative energy, medical advances, cheaper faster computers etc. Our progress has much head wind. Look at what Putin is doing in the Ukraine today. Trolls on sites like Physorg frustrate me a lot - but in reality they probably have very little effect.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
I think that as a species - we are in the process of finding those solutions.

Look at what Putin is doing in the Ukraine today.

This is the inevitable result of continuing to think 'as a species' and not appreciating. and respecting individual rights.
Solutions to ignorance won't be found in state solutions or teacher's unions.
But then with all the better, faster, cheap computers, why bother know if the earth orbits the sun if one has no use for that data. If or when that data is needed, ask Google.
I agree with what Heinlein what a human being should be able to do:
http://www.goodre...-diaper#
Cocoa
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2014
@ Noumenon - I have just re-read all of your comments above - and I fail to see any constructive solutions to the kind of problems that I have raised (example - poor education). Just attacking your straw-man of 'liberals' does not advance solutions.

While I refuse to respond to trolls like Ryggy - let me use his last post as an example. I propose that as a species - we are in the process of developing solutions to the problems that plague us. If you want an example of what I see as a problem - and a solution. Look at starvation, and look at projects such as this - http://ourworld.u...d-crisis

Now this is just an example - every day Physorg brings us examples of advances that are potentially moving us towards a better world - a new battery, a new catalyst, a new cancer treatment etc. etc.

Ryggy attacks this idea - with this kind of absurdity - cont.

Cocoa
4 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2014
cont. "This is the inevitable result of continuing to think 'as a species' and not appreciating. and respecting individual rights."

Do you see this kind of response as in any way advancing our progress towards a world in which each person has the same quality of life that I currently enjoy here in N. America? Just spouting ideological generalizations proposes nothing.

Just proposing that capitalism is better than socialism (which I agree with) - does not address the deep problems of our world (poverty, ignorance, corruption, pollution, inequality etc.)

My appeal is to people like you - to stop hijacking this science site - with your hyper- politicisization. Stick to discussing the science - stop spamming a science site - and using it as your political megaphone - it is a science site. This article for example bemoans the poor state of science education in the U.S. - a reality that was very obvious when I tried teaching a class at a local university.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2014
My appeal is to people like you - to stop hijacking this science site - with your hyper- politicisization. Stick to discussing the science - stop spamming a science site - and using it as your political megaphone - it is a science site.


Of course, proposed Solutions to studies such as the one under discussion and for example AGW, has Everything to do with politics, so it is entirely appropriate that such elements are interjected here, ....your personal aversion not withstanding.

This article for example bemoans the poor state of science education in the U.S. - a reality that was very obvious when I tried teaching a class at a local university.


Yes, and a scientifically minded person would recognize that the existing institution and system responsible for providing that education has proven to be an abject failure. As a famous scientist once stated, 'insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results'.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2014
Stick to discussing the science

Follow the money.
There are parents who so value their children's education they work extra jobs, longer hours to send their children to private schools, mostly Catholic or other religion based school because they provide the education public schools won't.
'Progressives' and teacher unions are dead set against supporting these parents and students.
Why?

we are in the process of developing solutions to the problems that plague us.

No, 'we' are not. Individuals are innovating and developing solutions to problems individuals have.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2014
@ Noumenon - I have just re-read all of your comments above - and I fail to see any constructive solutions to the kind of problems that I have raised (example - poor education). Just attacking your straw-man of 'liberals' does not advance solutions.


I suggest you try again. I clearly stated that liberalism exasperates and creates the conditions under which such failure occurs. I also pointed out that liberals act to counter any form of shame associated with such personal failure wrt education and poverty. To propose solutions you must recognize the causes. I've stated that government run education is thus a failure; this would imply that that institution should be phased out.

What you need to know about 'progressive liberals', is that their core moo is to use scientific social statistics (purely valid) to enact government control via social engineering to "solve" every little "issue" that their army of statisticians can mine. This expands government and reduces liberty....
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2014
.... The only statistical studies that liberal progressives do NOT respond to are those that expose the failure of their entire mentality. Thus, it is not in their best interest to refund parents who want to send their kids to a private school, nor to remove the debilitating effects of teachers unions.

Ask your self a simple question,... why is not grade 1 through 12 not entirely on the internet? It's been scientifically proven that kids learn better on the computer. You could have various web sites compete to create online interactive curriculums, with various accredited private physical testing locations to certify advancement for each grade. Phase out physical schools.

Instead, the government continues an out dated method of wasting hours per day cattle prodding kids into a classroom, with all the distractions from learning that that entails. They can't even ensure that school buses have seat belts in use, while at the same time it is a law for cars and trucks.

Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2014
Stick to discussing the science - stop spamming a science site - and using it as your political megaphone - it is a science site.


I've been reading this site for almost seven years, and I can tell you there is a constant stream of biased politically attacks wrapped in the guise of a "study",... bashing conservatives, religious people, and so called AGW "deniers", and to counter any non-gov solution to climate change, etc. This is what prompted my first few posts. So don't give me this "it's a science site" non-sense. There is plenty of bias propaganda milled here.

ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2014
Just spouting ideological generalizations proposes nothing.

Then why do you continue to do so?
The mind set of socialism, the 'we', not the individual, is prevalent in the propaganda to make it easier for the socialists to find fellow travelers and to make it easier to sacrifice a few individuals to 'save the planet' or to 'save the species'.
Of course it is much more difficult to have a mind set that promotes and respects the individual. There are billions of individuals and only one 'we'.
But if the real focus IS on the individual, then 'the we' benefit even more.
Do the socialists focus on 'the we' because it is easier, because it easier to gain power, to exploit envy?
If one is truly concerned about humanity, then the only effect approach is to focus on individual humans.

Cocoa
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2014
Noumenon
I've been reading this site for almost seven years, and I can tell you there is a constant stream of biased politically attacks wrapped in the guise of a "study"


I have been reading Physorg for many years too - and totally disagree with your representation. Your representation does inform me about your motivation. Even though I am interested in solutions - and I use the term mutual respect - understanding that somehow we must solve problems (let's use what is happening in Syria for example). A blood bath of unimaginable scale. So I recognize that we must somehow stop fighting with each other - and develop a culture of 'mutual respect'. I also think about how we deal with people who do not 'deserve' that mutual respect (eg white supremacists). You acknowledge that you despise the political bias of a web site - but spend your time trolling that site. This is a destructive behavior. Physorg is focused on solutions. Nuff said for me.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2014
You acknowledge that you despise the political bias of a web site - but spend your time trolling that site. This is a destructive behavior.


I make comments in the provided comment section for the purpose of relaying my opinion on matters related to the present article. How is it mutual respect and not destructive behavior for YOU to generalize and categorize my comments as "trolling"?

I have commented as many times on physics here.

Physorg is focused on solutions.

No it is not. It publishes (copy/pastes generally) science news. What solution did Phys.Org editors offer for the above problem?

Between, Phys.Org, you, and me,... I'M the only one that has offered solutions.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2014
- understanding that somehow we must solve problems (let's use what is happening in Syria for example). A blood bath of unimaginable scale.


Why?
Political power.
Various socialist factions fighting each other for control.
The politics and history of the region can't be ignored and the motivations of major world powers to cause mischief can't be ignored.
Cocoa
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2014
How is it mutual respect and not destructive behavior for YOU to generalize and categorize my comments as "trolling"?


Because by your own stipulation - you despise physorg. You do not see physorg as a science site - but as a bias political propaganda site. So yes - I see it as trolling that rather than frequenting sites that you appreciate - and can make a constructive contribution to - you want to start political fights - I do see that as the behavior of a troll.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2014
You do not see physorg as a science site - but as a bias political propaganda site

You don't see the bias?
If not, why not?
and can make a constructive contribution

I think I am making a constructive contribution by pointing out the bias you, and so many others, don't want to see and challenging your assumptions and bias.
Education in the US is very politicized so why ignore that?
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2014
Because by your own stipulation - you despise physorg. You do not see physorg as a science site - but as a bias political propaganda site.


I never said anything of the kind. You just made that up, dishonestly. I have likely discussed more science here than you have. You responses tell me you're dishonest. My comments are relevent to the topic. Yours are centered around bitching about mine.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2014
For all those who claim they want to discuss solutions to poor quality science education, are you open to any solutions, even if they don't support teacher unions and could support schools run by religious groups, or even home based schools?
"A German home-schooling family seeking asylum in the United States faces deportation after the U.S. Supreme Court said Monday it would not hear their case.

The justices rejected an appeal from Uwe and Hannelore Romeike, who claim the German government is persecuting them because they want to raise their children in accordance with their Christian beliefs. "
http://www.foxnew...-school/
Does the state own the children?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2014
Does the state own the children?
No the children grow up to own the state which is why we need to ensure that they are educated properly.
https://www.hslda.org/laws/

"Dan Dennett: Let's teach religion -- all religion -- in schools"
http://www.ted.co...ren.html

-so that all kids can know just how mundane their religions are.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2014
It's not surprising the German's are opposed to homeschooling.
The Prussian system, adopted in the USA, was quite useful for indoctrinating future soldiers for the state.
The US homeschooled for centuries.
The Pilgrims required parents to teach their children to read so they could read the Bible for themselves. Which was quite a change for its day as only the priests were allowed to read Bibles, in Latin.
Harvard was founded in the early 1600s to educate pastors.

A MA Catholic school teacher called into a talk show commenting how a public elementary school teacher, in MI(?), laughed at a disabled student whose head was stuck in a chair. She was stupid enough to record the incident on her cell phone AND post it. The principal was laughing, too. The principal resigned, but the teacher is being defend by the NEA.
The Catholic school teacher said that teacher would be fired instantly.
And many of the students are NOT Catholic, but their parents respect their discipline and academic rigor.
Cocoa
3 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2014
Noumenon
In response to this comment "Because by your own stipulation - you despise physorg. You do not see physorg as a science site - but as a bias political propaganda site."

Noumenon said:

I never said anything of the kind. You just made that up


Here are your exact words.

"there is a constant stream of biased politically attacks wrapped in the guise of a "study"

And again -

"So don't give me this "it's a science site" non-sense. There is plenty of bias propaganda milled here."

Arguing with people like you is clearly such a total waste of a persons life. Sorry it has taken me so long to figure it out.

Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2014
@Cocoa (caliban?),

That I stated .....

....there is a constant stream of biased politically attacks wrapped in the guise of a "study...


Does NOT imply A) that I "despise physorg", nor B) that I "do not see physorg as a science site", nor C) that I see physorg as primarily as "bias political propaganda site".

My statement makes no mention whatsoever of the vast majority of science news articles posted at Phys.Org,...nor did I imply that the vast majority of articles here are anything but science or technology related,... which I emjoy reading and value Phys.Orgs as a source.

Arguing with people like you is clearly such a total waste of a persons life. Sorry it has taken me so long to figure it out.

Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2014
Arguing with people like you is clearly such a total waste of a persons life.


If you reread the above exchange, you will discover that it was YOU who degenerated the conversation. I was on topic while you were concerned only with critiquing the supposed purpose of my commenting, not the actual topic.

You called me a troll, then denied it, then called me a troll again, all the while maintaining that we must have "mutual respect". How fast such pie-in-the-sky fantasy non-solutions fad away.

I suggest in the future, ....1) do not try to surmise the motivation behind why one is making a particular point, but instead comment on the ACTUAL point being made,... and 2) do not put your own words into other peoples mouth,... 3) if you misinterprete ones post, do not continue to argue against your misinterpretation EVEN after the commentor has reworded their post to correct that misapprehension,... 4) if you have no more substantive counter-arguments, stop posting.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2014
@Cocoa

You posted,....

- you will get no argument from me - that centralized - top down solutions - are ineffective, and often have unintended consequences.


.... and .....

I do not think the government is - or should be - the primary agent of education. I actually think that the government does a very poor job of education - and that private schools will always do a better job. I simply support the idea of an educated society vs an uneducated society.


... to which we agree 100%,...... so logically, we should also be able to agree that political forces that tend to operate counter to these points, as in the idealology of 'progressive liberalism', ... should also be a relevant topic of discussion and in context. A scientifically minded person looks to the core issue as primary, not each particularity,... and it resides in an idealology of big gov.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2014
The Pilgrims required parents to teach their children to read so they could read the Bible for themselves. Which was quite a change for its day as only the priests were allowed to read Bibles
Well sure they had to understand how god meant for the chosen people to take what they wanted from godless heathens just as Joshua did.

Xians began killing and stealing and slaving and witch-burning as soon as they got here and needed to know that god not only approved of these actions, he demanded them. And they were able to read these things for themselves in the book he wrote. Because they were 'educated'.

Very well educated people would later give this activity a name - 'manifest destiny'.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2014
[continued from above],... and it's continued scientifically proven failures.

The above study will be presented to the Obama admin. for purposes of the recommendation of yet "more funding" for science education. Why was there not supposed proper funding 4 years ago, 10 years ago, 25 years ago. They had enough funding all along, nearly an infinite sum. It is a scam, and they will never admit what the study implies,... that government run education system proves to be a abject failure.

That people don't know that the earth revolves around the sun, is not a little thing thag nees tweeking,... it's an catastrophic systemic failure that is fundamental in its implications wrt government solutions.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2014
[EDIT] "....not a little thing that needs tweeking..."
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2014

Why?
Political power.
Various socialist factions fighting each other for control.
The politics and history of the region can't be ignored and the motivations of major world powers to cause mischief can't be ignored.
You know what's curious? A democratically-elected official in the Ukraine is ousted by a decidedly undemocratic process, and so a neighboring democracy invades at the request of said ousted official. This prompts another democracy halfway around the globe to begin issuing threats and sanctions.

Naw that's not the curious part. The curious part is this:

"02-23-14 Pentagon Plans to Shrink Army to Pre-World War II Level"

-Just when the army has run out of excuses for maintaining its size and strength, one conveniently pops up. Has this ever happened before? Well sure. Korea is only the most obvious example.

As I enjoy repeating the obvious, above a certain level all Leaders are on the same Side. All work to Manage the Empire They all serve.

Hail Empire etcetc.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2014
it's an catastrophic systemic failure

And the pro-statist and anti-religion nuts like auto refuse to be open to solutions that would challenge their paradigm.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2014
it's an catastrophic systemic failure

And the pro-statist and anti-religion nuts like auto refuse to be open to solutions that would challenge their paradigm.
Hey look it appears I've found the proper -ism for ryggy

"Spencer revised Darwin's biological theory into social Darwinism, a body of ideas that applied the theory of evolution to society, politics, the economy, and education. Spencer maintained that in modern industrialized societies, as in earlier simpler societies, the "fittest" individuals of each generation survived because they were intelligent and adaptable. Competition caused the brightest and strongest individuals to climb to the top of the society. Urging unlimited competition, Spencer wanted government to restrict its activities to the bare minimum. He opposed public schools, claiming that they would create a monopoly for mediocrity by catering to students of low ability. He wanted private schools to compete against each other..."
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2014
claiming that they would create a monopoly for mediocrity by catering to students of low ability. He wanted private schools to compete against each other..


That is what Sweden is doing with their voucher program.
Cocoa
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2014
Noumenon
do not put your own words into other peoples mouth,...


I quouted your own words. Here let me repeat them for you.

"So don't give me this "it's a science site" non-sense. There is plenty of bias propaganda milled here."


So clearly we speak a different language. Yes I am tired of people like you and Ryggy and uba - with your anti Physorg "dont give me this is a science site non-sense".

I don't get the motivation of people - spending their time on a really great site - and then thinking it is cool to constantly start arguments about what shitty site is it.

Have a good life.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2014
constantly start arguments

Real science spawns arguments, not consensus.
Noumenon
3.2 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2014
@Cocoa, see suggestion #4 again, maybe write it down and recite it several times to yourself.

I already corrected your misapprehension,.. and yet you still want to argue as if it was still valid.

I already stated that I value this site, not dispise it as your falsely claim, and that just because I see bias on SOME studies that phys.org links to, does not of course mean that EVERY posting of phys.org is unscientitic and that I hate phys.org. Only a nutter and dishonest troll would make such wild presumptions about another person.
Cocoa
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2014
Hey Noumenon - You got - I will never again interact with any comments you post. Just add you to the list with Ryggy, Free, Uba et al. Perhaps we speak a different language, or perhaps my read of the situation is on target - and you are another member of the group who just likes to tie up the comments section with negatives - "Dont give me any of that 'this is a science site' nonsense" etc. Take suggestlon 4 and apply to yourself if you want. Otherwise - like i say -havea nice life - while i do believe we have to find ways to get along - and work on solutions - i am also beginning to unerstand that at some point - differences are too great - dialogue becomes futile.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2014
Again, instead of discussing the issues, Cocoa talks ABOUT those who make comments about the article.
What are YOUR solutions, Coco?
Cocoa
4.3 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2014
Ryggy wants solutions. Everyday there are dozens of solutions reported on sites like Physorg - and other great technology web sites.

How about this one for a potential new fuel source - http://cleantechn...veloped/

Or this one - for a lower cost solar panel - http://phys.org/n...ent.html

Here's one for cancer treatment - http://medicalxpr...ood.html

Here is one about an awesome new battery - http://www.greeno...battery/

Get the idea? I thought not. It is just easier for negatives like Ryggy to troll the board saying stupid shit like - all socialists are socialist.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2014
This article was the poor quality of US science education.
How will new fuel sources, low cost solar panels, better cancer treatment, or a new battery improve the quality of science education?
And if education is not improved, who will be qualified to create new products?
I and others have pointed out that most public schools in the USA are state and union controlled and the state and unions are opposed to alternatives that improve the quality of education.
Before you can solve a problem it must be identified. That is a positive step.
Cocoa
5 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2014
But the topic at hand - is the bashing of a science site by commenters like yourself - constantly reverting to arguing what a shitty web site physorg is.

Now - you want solutions to the poor level of education in the U.S. - I would argue that we must promote a culture that has a high regard for education. My children went to a state run school - and received a first class education - and are now both very successful in life. So your premise that the problem is state schools, and unions is bollocks. Other countries across the world have state run schools - and much better educated children (take a look at China). So your premise is bollocks - as is all of your political claptrap. I know children who were home schooled - and are very poorly educated - and struggled when they tried going to college - because they did not have the foundation of education they needed. So your premise is bollocks. Like many of the problems in society (homelessness, poverty, violence, drugs) cont.
Cocoa
4 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2014
the problem of poor education in our society is complex - and will not be solved with political platitudes. My children got their amazing education - because we were behind them 100 percent. We never missed a school conference - and always made their education the number one priority. Having great schools will not solve the problem - if the family support is not there for the kids.

You want my solutions to poor education.

I would de-fund the military - and put that money into building new schools - paying teachers 6 figure salaries (this would attract the brightest and the best).

I would study success stories - and apply them universally - http://www.edutop...ew-video

I would study countries that have turned their education system around - and apply the lessons to our system - http://www.theatl.../250564/

But see Ryggy - cont
Cocoa
5 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2014
- that is because I value science, and technology, and education - and rather than spending my time - bashing really great web sites like physorg - accusing them of being bias, and political propaganda sites - I read them to learn what I can about the universe I live in.

Here is a neat article about the Finnish education turn around - http://www.nea.or...0991.htm
Maggnus
5 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2014
Well said Cocoa - and now Rygg will post 22 off-topic, politically inspired quotes about socialist this and capitalist that and blah blah schools bad and blah blah unions at fault and blah blah Obama and blah blah socialist and blah blah fascism socialist communist blah blah.

ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2014
I would argue that we must promote a culture that has a high regard for education. My children went to a state run school - and received a first class education - and are now both very successful in life. So your premise that the problem is state schools, and unions is bollocks.


Then why do so many parents want their children OUT union controlled, state run schools?
But, like I said coco, you automatically reject unions or the state are a problem with NO supporting data.
And all you can say is 'let's promote a culture with high regard for education'. What does that mean? How do you do it?
the problem of poor education in our society is complex

Not really.
I would study success stories - and apply them universally

Teacher unions won't allow it, But if education is soo complex how can a universal solution succeed?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2014
" Three third-grade students at a Sonora elementary school were busted for smoking pot in the school's bathroom last week."
http://sanfrancis...athroom/
" Facing the ground with his torso stuck through the open back of a school desk chair, a 10-year-old boy wipes tears from his eyes as a classroom bustles around him.

"Do you want to get Tasered?" a woman asks.

The cell phone video, shot last year at Oaktree Elementary in Goodrich, has led to the resignation of the school's principal and the filing of tenure charges against the teacher who shot the video, according to an attorney for the boy's family."
http://www.usatod...5857585/

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2014
you automatically reject unions or the state are a problem with NO supporting data

HOLY CRAP
a post by Rygg with no political rant/links!
@Rygg
actually, it appears by her comments that she said - it was not JUST because of state, etc and it was a COMPLEX issue
and I happen to agree
this is not a SINGLE item cause here, and the problems cannot be attributed to one thing, like the state (which, has an effect, but so does bad/uninterested parenting etc)
Not really

yes, really
otherwise, why is a COMPLETELY state run school system (DOD) normally scoring WAY above your average public (and many private) schools?
But if education is soo complex how can a universal solution succeed?

who says it WILL?

Ah! NOW there is the old Ryg !!! back again with nice irrelevant posts!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2014
"Gov. Scott Walker's signature plan to slash collective bargaining has set off a Darwinian struggle for survival among Wisconsin's public employee unions.

In the two years since Walker's plan became law, tens of thousands of teachers and state and local workers have dropped out of their unions, according to a Journal Sentinel analysis of little-used federal financial records."
"The Wisconsin Education Association Council — the state's primary teachers union — doesn't have to file annual financial reports with the U.S. Department of Labor.

But according to a person who has reviewed the group's internal numbers, WEAC has lost roughly 50% of its 98,000 dues-paying members since Walker signed Act 10.

The financial pressure has caused the union to cut a large share of its staff. For a time last year, union executives considered selling WEAC's prominent hilltop headquarters on the south side of Madison."
http://www.jsonli...s-takes-
Cocoa
5 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2014
But, like I said coco, you automatically reject unions or the state are a problem with NO supporting data.

No I don't - but I did supply you with data to support the idea that they are not the ONLY problem. You see - if I can show a state run system - that has good educational outcomes (Finland, China etc.) - then I have demonstrated that the state is clearly not THE problem. The logic is probably too complex for you to follow.
Cocoa
5 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2014
Then why do so many parents want their children OUT union controlled, state run schools?


There is a local - state run school district - that has unions - and accepts a limited number of transfers per year. Due to the reputation of this school district - parents camp out for weeks - to be on line - to get one of the coveted transfers.

See how your logic is bollocks? I didn't think so.
Cocoa
5 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2014
@Captian Stumpy

Not really

yes, really


Thanks Captain - you put your finger right on the problem. How can you argue about a problem so complex as education - in a world like ours that is so complex - when someone can so glibly turn around and deny the layer upon layer upon layer of such an issue? It is mind numbing.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2014
Thanks Captain - you put your finger right on the problem. How can you argue about a problem so complex as education - in a world like ours that is so complex - when someone can so glibly turn around and deny the layer upon layer upon layer of such an issue? It is mind numbing.

@Cocoa
You are welcome
we might just be better off ignoring Rygg completely.
his idea of refuting a post is to flood with spam and irrelevant politically charged topics and then argue politics on it all.
there is no logic or intelligence involved, only rote regurgitation of one view versus another, and should you actually post something like an opinion or ANY supporting evidence, then he will use it as proof in his mind of some socialistic takeover conspiracy attempting to steal his foil hat, or whatever

Rygg surely meets the definition of Spamming Troll

interesting and thoughtful posts, Cocoa
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2014
" "[De Blasio] is someone who just subscribes to the traditional teachers union based belief that anything outside the old school public education, any innovation, any reform, is a bad idea.""
http://www.thedai...ity.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2014
if I can show a state run system - that has good educational outcomes (Finland, China etc.) - then I have demonstrated that the state is clearly not THE problem.


Why do these states have good outcomes?

Why won't all states adopt what works?
When the state has the power to deny choices and to deny options and does, the state IS the problem.
Now the socialist mayor of NYC is siding with teacher unions to deny parents a choice.
That is problem and he is not the only govt leader who sides with teacher unions to deny options for parents.
Sweden provides vouchers for parents to choose. What's wrong with that?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2014
Due to the reputation of this school district - parents camp out for weeks - to be on line - to get one of the coveted transfers.


Why aren't ALL public schools like this?
Too complicated for you to understand?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2014
"But when it comes to setting aside public funds for K-12 students to be educated in a private setting, the teachers unions sing a very different tune.

A National Education Association policy brief reads, "Vouchers aren't a strategy for improving the public schools; they are a strategy of abandonment that would leave America's children behind. The battle over vouchers diverts time, energy and resources from real school improvement.""
"Dennis Van Roekel, wrote a threatening letter to every Democratic member of Congress declaring that the union opposed any extension of the popular D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, and would be watching them very carefully."
"The Friedman Foundation reports that where voucher and other types of privatization options are in play, school choice improves student outcomes for just about all kids. "
http://www.ocregi...nts.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2014
"So why is it okay to give funds to late teens to attend a private college, but not to 8, 12 and 16 year olds to enroll in a private elementary, middle or high school?

The principle is either sound or it's not.

Obviously unions are threatened by vouchers on a K-12 level because that's where their primary source of funding is. Not nearly as many college instructors and professors elect to pay union dues."
http://www.ocregi...nts.html

If vouchers are good for college students, why not K-12?
Cocoa
5 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2014
Too complicated for you to understand?


No - too complicated for you to understand. Why don't you go quote mine from one of your right wing web sites - I am sure they could solve all the world's problems with a simple wave of their magic wand. It is really simple according to you.
Cocoa
5 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2014
@CaptainStumpy

there is no logic or intelligence involved


I know - I know - most of the time I just downvote Ryggy - and move. It is a very interesting psychology - that someone spend all day long - sitting at a computer - advertising their lack of any kind of ability to understand an argument. I have to be more disciplined - too many things to do in life - without arguing with a brick wall.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2014
Since some foreign govt schools are not too bad, and some US govt schools may not be so bad, then govt forced shooling can't be a problem according to coco.
coco claimed he supported methods are are effective. Vouchers are effective and systems that allow parents to choose, without being put on a waitlist, are effective.
These are opposed by teacher's unions and by many local govts that control the schools.
But coco claims govts, and the unions that pay off the politicians can't be a problem.
Cocoa
5 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2014
But coco claims govts, and the unions that pay off the politicians can't be a problem.


I never said that did I? I said that if I can show you an example of a govt. run school that is a great school - then your premise that THE problem is government run schools is obviously false. It is a simple point of logic - just too complex for you to understand - you must have been home schooled.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2014
coco, quite defensive about the failure of most govt run schools aren't we?
No - I am a Brit - living in bible belt America

Sounds like dj in Oklahoma.
BTW, I can't find where I said govt run schools is THE problem. I do say the govt run schools that refuse to allow parents choice IS a problem.
So why does coco continue to ignore the 800 lb gorilla in the class room, NEA, AFT and the socialists like the mayor of NYC who support them?
Even teacher are acknowledging unions are a problems as WI teachers are decertifying their unions.
Cocoa
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2014
coco, quite defensive about the failure of most govt run schools aren't we?


Not at all - just pointing out how you are incapable of understanding a simple point of logic.

Quite unable to understand that there may actually be such a thing as a well run educational sytem - that is govt. run - and may also even have unions aren't you?
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2014
coco, my kids attended a British based school in Jeddah.
I liked the uniforms, the house structure and the discipline.
When they went to a public school in Tucson, it was chaos, no discipline and my kids did not like it. BTW, over 50% of the TUSD budget went to administration, not teaching.
They did like the next school, a charter school not controlled by the unions that was run by a former teacher.
I know there CAN be schools that are public and have unions, but they are exceptions, therefore their success can't be because they are govt/union controlled schools.
So if ALL govt/union schools are not successful, govt/unions are NOT contributing to the success are they?
Cocoa
5 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2014
You still can't get it Ryggy - you must have been home schooled. I was pointing out the education is complex - it is not reasonable to say that the problem is Unions, and the Government. The problems are highly complex. Home environment, economics, social supports, quality of school, etc. etc. etc. You are just not able to understand that your simple little mind wants to blame one factor. Funny how someone with such an inability to understand something like education - spends their life spamming a science site with bullshit.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2014
It is a very interesting psychology - that someone spend all day long - sitting at a computer - advertising their lack of any kind of ability to understand an argument. I have to be more disciplined - too many things to do in life - without arguing with a brick wall

@Cocoa
the "payoff" is getting a rise & response out of you
once she/he gets you arguing/fighting, then they score and it creates a feedback loop that gives them some pleasure response or positive incentive
it is not about science, or being right, or accurate, or even valid
it is all about creating disorder (trolling) and obfuscation
thats it, really
watch how the responses are
there is no valid scientific support for anything, just conjecture and politically charged posts
also- only political argument is used. NO valid science argument (probably out of ignorance)
go back to ignoring/downvoting/reporting
but especially dont reply (hard, I know!) :-)
Rygg= TROLL
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2014
you must have been home schooled.

Coco confirms my theory that coco can't imagine any effective system that is NOT govt and union run.
Have you noticed many of the latest spelling bee winners are home schooled?
Why does coco consider 'home schooled' to be an insult?
it is not reasonable to say that the problem is Unions, and the Government.

Of course it is since the vast majority of US schools are controlled by unions and the govt AND the vast majority of their graduates are stupid. One measure of the failure of the govt/union education complex are the remedial reading, writing and math classes that must be taken by so many to enter community colleges.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Mar 06, 2014
"The U.S. Department of Education (DOE) estimates there are more than 1.5 million children being taught at home. Furthermore, the DOE estimates that home-schooling has been growing at 7 percent a year for the last 10 years."
"The results reinforced previous home-school studies conducted over a period of 25 years. "
"The average public school student taking these standardized tests scored at the 50th percentile in each subject area."
"home-schooled boys scored at the 87th percentile and girls at the 88th. Household income had little impact on the results of home-school students: Children of parents with an income between $35,000 and $49,000 scored at the 86th percentile, whereas children of parents with an income over $70,000 scored at the 89th percentile."
"there are two main factors for these outstanding results: the educational environment where learning takes place, and the individualized, one-on-one instruction."

http://www.washin...ing-outs
Cocoa
5 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2014
Coco confirms my theory that coco can't imagine any effective system that is NOT govt and union run.


Not at all Ryggy - I fully appreciate that home schooling is on of the most viable options for concerned parents - looking at the mess of our current school system. I was just poking fun at your stupidity. You were the one who said that the problem of education was not complex - showing how stupid your are. Society is complex - and problems like poverty, unemployment, crime, violence, and poor educational systems are all clearly linked. There is no magic bullet - and if you think you have it - go save the world - oh that's right - your mission in life is to disparage a really great web site - that promotes science and technology - that I see as a major leg of the solution to these problems. I highly commend parents who are working hard and home schooling their kids - I also commend brave educators who are working in very tough environments to bring about positive change.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2014
Society is complex - and problems like poverty, unemployment, crime, violence, and poor educational systems are all clearly linked. There is no magic bullet - and if you think you have it -

The solution is L-I-B-E-R-T-Y.
Unlike the 'liberals' I don't pretend I know what's best for someone else.
I do know is that 'liberal' central planning schemes fail to achieve the stated purpose so why do so many here who claim to like science and be data driven choose to ignore the failures of socialist central planning?
I also commend brave educators who are working in very tough environments to bring about positive change.

What is 'positive change'?
Are they teaching students to be entrepreneurs? Teaching them how and why Western Civilization succeeded so spectacularly and how 'liberals' are trying to destroy it?
Are they teaching them about Locke and liberty or Adam Smith or von Mises or...?
Citizens who knew about liberty and its history would bring positive change.
Cocoa
5 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2014
The solution is L-I-B-E-R-T-Y.


Except that you cannot show us any examples of a system - in which there is liberty (what ever you mean by that) - and in which these problems have been solved. Please correct me if I am wrong - and show us your example - of a system - where there is L-I-B-E-R-T-Y - and all of the aforementioned problems are solved. Remember there are 7 billion of us on this planet - and we have to coexist.

I have repeatedly emphasized my understanding that centralized planning systems are inefficient and ineffective. I do also understand that there is a role for government in mediating our coexistence.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2014
and in which these problems have been solved.

You just said yourself parents who have the liberty to home school have great results.
mediating our coexistence.

But you advocate MANDATING a co-existence.

I can, and have shown that govt MANDATED solutions fail so what is the alternative to govt MANDATED solutions to solve ALL the problems you are wringing your hands about?
barakn
4 / 5 (4) Mar 06, 2014
"home-schooled boys scored at the 87th percentile and girls at the 88th. Household income had little impact on the results of home-school students: Children of parents with an income between $35,000 and $49,000 scored at the 86th percentile, whereas children of parents with an income over $70,000 scored at the 89th percentile."
"there are two main factors for these outstanding results: the educational environment where learning takes place, and the individualized, one-on-one instruction." -soggyring2
You forgot the biggest factors. In most states this testing isn't mandatory for homeschoolers, and the parents that are doing the worst job of teaching their kids are also far more likely not to let them take these tests. Parents of children with special needs are far less likely to homeschool them because public school districts have the training and the expensive equipment necessary to deal with them.
Cocoa
5 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2014
But you advocate MANDATING a co-existence.


No I don't - liar. Where have you ever seen that I advocate MANDATING anything?

Now answer the question that was asked of you. Please show us an example of a system that has L-I-B-E-R-T-Y - and has solved the problems we have been discussing - of poverty, crime, violence, poor education, etc. Where is your example? You say that home shoolers have good results. I agree. So does the local - government run - school of science and math. You are great at using fancy sounding words like L-I-B-E-R-T-Y - but when asked to explain yourself - you got N-O-T-H-I-N-G.....
Cocoa
5 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2014
@Captain Stumpy
but especially dont reply (hard, I know!) :-)


You are right of course Captain - and definitely makes a fool of me if I waste too much time. But interestingly - there does seem to be a benefit once in a while of prodding Ryggy into revealing himself. He has just announced that the solution to the problems of the world is 'liberty'. But of course - pushing him to explain that - leaves a big black hole. So maybe it is just good for sharpening up my debating skills.

Thanks.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2014
Liberty was working quite well in the USA prior to the 'progressive' era creating the Federal Reserve, creating an income tax, injected the US into WWI, created the first, of hundreds of regulatory agencies, destroyed the mutual aid societies...and created the political entrepreneur the used the power of the state to destroy their competition.
Liberty was benefiting people, but not the govt.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2014
"Horace Mann, credited as the father of the American public school system, studied a wide variety of educational models before implementing the Prussian system designed by Fredrick the Great. King Frederick created a system that was engineered to teach obedience and solidify his control. Focusing on following directions, basic skills, and conformity, he sought to indoctrinate the nation from an early age. Isolating students in rows and teachers in individual classrooms fashioned a strict hierarchy—intentionally fostering fear and loneliness."
"This system was perpetuated throughout the early twentieth century by social efficiency theorists who sought to industrialize the educational process. Led by educators such as Ellwood P. Cubberley, they used education as a tool for social engineering:"
http://www.thenew...al-model
Cocoa
5 / 5 (1) Mar 06, 2014
Liberty was working quite well in the USA prior to the 'progressive' era


OMG Ryggy - your example of the perfect society - where there was no crime, no violence, no poverty, no social problems, and of course everyone was getting a great education - was the segregated U.S.A. You are too funny. You may want to check with some poor black folks who were alive during that period (joke) to see what kind of a life they were getting with their new found L-I-B-E-R-T-Y.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2014
"A unique curriculum, 300 professional staff, and collaboration with a state university is helping improve retention rates at one of the oldest Native American boarding schools in South Dakota."
"Before Success Academy, about five graduates per year had attended Flandreau Indian School since they were freshmen. Four years later, 40 graduating seniors had attended FIS for all four years of high school."
http://rapidcityj...917.html
FIS is a US govt run school.

was the segregated U.S.A.

No, it was not.

And, once again, coco reveals his socialist credentials.
BTW, it was the 'progressive' during this time that promoted eugenics to 'de-segregate' by killing off the undesirables.
Today, one of the eugenics founders, Margaret Sanger, has enabled the murder of more black babies than any NAZI white supremacists could dream of.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Mar 06, 2014
your example of the perfect society

I don't have an example of a 'perfect' society.
That is a socialists wet dream and one version was called Utopia. All versions of the 'perfect' socialist society had a multi-class system with the 'intellectuals' as leaders guiding the less intelligent. "Brave New World" was one example 'liberals' hoped for.
I support a society that would emerge when free individuals have the liberty to create one.
Why won't the 'progressive' respect that individual's liberty to do so?
Cocoa
5 / 5 (1) Mar 06, 2014
No, it was not.


Yes it was - here are your very words - in response to me asking for an example of a society where liberty has solved the aforementioned problems -

"Liberty was working quite well in the USA prior to the 'progressive' era creating the Federal Reserve, creating an income tax, injected the US into WWI"

So again - if liberty is the solution to the aforementioned social problems - please give us an example of where this has happened?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2014
"Members of the Inglewood, Calif. community were outraged to learn that school district administrators had spent $38,000 worth of public money vacationing at a luxurious hotel and spa — ostensibly for the purpose of discussing strategies for implementing the Common Core standards at schools in the impoverished district.

Later, when the spa trip was uncovered and reported by local news, a veritable army of police officers was dispatched to one of the schools to prevent a protest by angry students.

Read more: http://dailycalle...vEmkbjKM
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Mar 06, 2014
"According to David Beito in From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State, there was a "great stigma" attached to accepting government aid or private charity during the late 18th and early 19th centuries.[1] Mutual aid, on the other hand, did not carry the same stigma. It was based on reciprocity: today's mutual-aid recipient could be tomorrow's donor, and vice versa."
"By the 1920s, at least one out of every three males was a member of a mutual-aid society.[4] Members of societies carried over $9 billion worth of life insurance by 1920. During the same period, "lodges dominated the field of health insurance."[5] Numerous lodges offered unemployment benefits. Some black fraternal lodges, taking note of the sporadic nature of African-American employment at the time, allowed members to receive unemployment benefits even if they were up to six months behind in dues.[6]"
http://mises.org/daily/5388/
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2014
"Mutual-aid societies also founded 71 orphanages between 1890 and 1922, almost all without government subsidy.[16] Perhaps the largest of these was Mooseheart, founded by the Loyal Order of Moose in 1913. Hundreds of children lived there at a time. It had a student newspaper, two debate teams, three theatrical organizations, and a small radio station. The success of Mooseheart alumni was remarkable. Alumni were four times more likely than the general population to have attended institutions of higher learning. Male alumni earned 71 percent more than the national average, and female alumni earned 63 percent more.[17]"
"with so many services being supplied by mutual aid, many groups had reason to lobby government for its destruction."
http://mises.org/daily/5388/

Cocoa
5 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2014
That's it Ryggy - just change the subject - get caught saying stupid stuff - and then when someone holds you accountable - change the subject. Where is this mythical society - where L-I-B-E-R-T-Y solves all of the aforementioned problems.

Sounds to me like you are no better than the socialists and their perfect society.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2014
Change the subject?
No, mutual aid societies are examples of how people with the liberty respond to social needs without state dependence.
And note how the 'progressive' state responded to that competition.

Note, too, coco, like dj, plays the race card somehow conflating state segregation with liberty. State segregation is a violation of liberty and violating liberty is the objective of the 'progressive'.
Cocoa
5 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2014
But Ryggy - the question was - please show us an example of this society - where L-I-B-E-R-T-Y was the solution for the aforementioned social problems? You were the one who said that the solution is L-I-B-E-R-T-Y. I am just asking you to be accountable for what you said. I am pointing out that it is YOU who said that the problem of education is NOT complex. And where did I ever play the race card? Me thinks you doth protest too much. I simply pointed out - that when asked for an example of this mythical society - where L-I-B-E-R-T-Y (what ever you mean by that) is the solution to the aforementioned social problems - you gave an example of pre-war U.S.A. Ha Ha Ha - how could you suggest that a society in which there is segregation - is an example of some mythical perfect society. You are an idiot. My point is that social problems - like poor education - are complex - and not solved by silly platitudes like 'all liberals are socialists'.
barakn
3.3 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2014
"home-schooled boys scored at the 87th percentile and girls at the 88th. Household income had little impact on the results of home-school students: Children of parents with an income between $35,000 and $49,000 scored at the 86th percentile, whereas children of parents with an income over $70,000 scored at the 89th percentile." -soggyring2
Even the low end of your scale reflects a family with one working parent, and the other teaching the kids at home. As conservatives are so fond of pointing out, two-parent families are better, and home-schoolers are more likely to be two-parent. So why doesn't it surprise me that you never bothered to point out that you were making an apples and oranges comparison? Public schools do surprisingly well considering the extra load of low-income, single-parent, and special ed students they have to deal with.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2014
how could you suggest that a society in which there is segregation - is an example of some mythical perfect society.


Unlike 'progressives', I don't expect the govt to create perfection on earth.
I stated and demonstrated that when individuals have the liberty, societies emerge that do a much better job of resolving problems than the govt does.
There are two types of segregation. One is by choice, the other is by force.
I suspect coco (or is it dj) means govt imposed segregation.
So on one hand, coco expects the govt can create a perfect society yet that same institution, the govt,can also pass laws that do not apply to everyone and discriminate based upon some intrinsic feature of the individual like skin color or gender or religion or political perspective or...
Cocoa
5 / 5 (1) Mar 07, 2014
I stated and demonstrated that when individuals have the liberty, societies emerge that do a much better job of resolving problems than the govt does.


No you didn't. But I will accept the premise - as I have stated it many times myself - that a distributed form of resource allocation - is much more efficient and effective than a centralized system of planning. I would agree that this can be demonstrated by looking at history. However - you have not addressed the question I keep asking you - which is please show me a society that supports your assertion - that the solution to the aforementioned social problems - is L-I-B-E-R-T-Y. My assertion is that history shows us that we have a need for oversight in our society - and that free markets often develop excesses - that need some level of monitoring. I can show you examples of mixed economies (pretty much every economy in the world - to a greater or lesser degree). So I again emphasize that you talk in theory cont.
Cocoa
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2014
and that you cannot back up your stupid claim with real world examples.

Unlike 'progressives', I don't expect the govt to create perfection on earth.


Stipulating what 'progressives' do, or do not believe in - is a stupid strawman. I don't expect the govt to create perfection on earth - any more than I expect any entity to do that. 7 billion people living together is inherently a messy undertaking. Childish name calling solves nothing.

I notice you shut up about the race card when I called you on it. Why do you think it is OK to just toss around stupid allegations?
ThomasQuinn
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2014
how could you suggest that a society in which there is segregation - is an example of some mythical perfect society.


Unlike 'progressives', I don't expect the govt to create perfection on earth.
I stated and demonstrated that when individuals have the liberty, societies emerge that do a much better job of resolving problems than the govt does.


You must be really impressed by Somalia, where people are at liberty to do as they please without government control. Also, feudal Europe before ca. AD 1000 must really be a dream for you.

Do you ever even think things through just a little before posting insanity like your above remarks?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Mar 09, 2014
where people are at liberty to do as they please without government control.

False.
"The Law of the Somalis, by Michael Van Notten"
http://explorersf...139.html
What makes Somalia chaotic are those who are attempting to impose their form of govt on the Somalis.
eudal Europe before ca. AD 1000 must really be a dream for you.

Feudalism is another form of socialism, which is why Hayek titled his anti-socialist book "The Road to Serfdom", which is where the 'progressives' are leading everyone.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Mar 09, 2014
Quinn, what's wrong with a limited govt like the original US Constitution intended or as Bastiat described in The Law?
Is it that the power of such a govt must be limited to protecting everyone's rights and that you and your fellow socialists can't use the law, the power of the state, to plunder the wealth of those you don't like?
Socialists/'progressives'/'liberals' are no different than any other tyrant, they want to use the power of the state, the power of coercion, the power of the gun, to create their vision, or to just be selfish and have power, because only they know what is best for everyone else.
Just ask them.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Mar 09, 2014
What makes Somalia chaotic are those who are attempting to impose their form of govt on the Somalis

@Rygg
now, whereas the above statement is true...
IMHO - there is no real rule of law in Somalia except in very small areas of very limited influence (with very limited power)
unless things have changed DRASTICALLY then most places were completely lawless and the rule of might was the order of the day
you got away with whatever you wanted as long as you were more powerful than those who wanted differently than you
The law of the jungle: no real gov't that I saw
and as for the "Tribal Laws", they were about as effective as Hillbilly code currently is in the mountainous Southern states (IOW- it exists but it is limited to a small fringe faction and is not recognized by federal or state law)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2014
here is no real rule of law in Somalia except in very small areas of very limited influence (with very limited power)


It's called Xeer. Why isn't this real law?
BTW, Stump, then you don't believe the Sioux had real law or have the right to govern themselves?

"How Somalia's aged tribal justice system keeps the peace in a country known for chaos."
http://www.legala...p?id=891

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2014
"In the years before the civil war that tore the country apart, starting with the overthrow of longtime dictator Siad Barre in 1991, the state itself was the primary abuser of human rights, and its courts were known for their brutal, politically motivated persecutions. Somalis, the majority of whom are nomadic goat and camel herders, generally continued to resolve their disputes using xeer, rather than the new state system with its courtrooms and jails.

Passed down orally, the traditional laws are modern in some ways. They include, for example, stipulations about the conduct of war that seem to mirror the much younger Geneva Conventions. But the traditional laws can be harsh and unfair: Individual rights are sometimes sacrificed in the name of stability. And even with xeer in use, bursts of fighting and crime occur, particularly in the turbulent Mogadishu. By and large, though, people say that xeer is a law that people respect, " see earlier reference
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2014
While I refuse to respond to trolls like Ryggy...... - Cocoa


LOL
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Mar 09, 2014
It's called Xeer. Why isn't this real law?
BTW, Stump, then you don't believe the Sioux had real law or have the right to govern themselves?

Rygg
you misunderstood about Somalia. I DIDNT say it WASNT real law. I said
IMHO - there is no real rule of law in Somalia except in very small areas of very limited influence (with very limited power)

their law is based on custom, just like the Lakota (do I have a problem with that? no. Can Lakota govern themselves? Yes. Do NOT put words in my mouth based upon YOUR stupidity/inability to comprehend)
second- their law only works for those who accept it
third- it tends to be a violent place with factions fighting
fourth- The person with the most power rules for however long he can keep it, as shown by the Somali warlords and their fighting in the news, etc
lastly- it is IMHO and based upon personal observation. Not some published study

you are just looking to TROLL...
find someone else
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Mar 09, 2014
"The Law of the Somalis, by Michael Van Notten"
http://explorersf...139.html

@Rygg
sorry, almost forgot
interesting link
thanks for posting it
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Mar 14, 2014
"In California, administrators must in effect decide whether to grant teachers tenure (permanent employment) after just 18 months; too soon, say critics. Firing bad ones is nightmarishly hard, partly because teachers may appeal to a three-person panel on which two other teachers sit; one teacher accused of sexually abusing 23 students was paid $40,000 to leave because he could not be sacked immediately. Bad teachers often simply perform the "dance of the lemons", being moved from district to district. And schools with large numbers of poor or ethnic-minority students, like Josh's, suffer most from seniority rules because they tend to have higher numbers of new teachers; in bad times, some have had to lay off two-thirds of their teaching staff."
http://www.econom...e-lemons
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Mar 14, 2014
"Will the government "push bad actors out of the K-12 sector?"

"No," Duncan admitted.

Instead, the government will provide billions of dollar to low-performing, government run-schools even as it tries to cut billions of dollars from low-performing private-sector schools, he said.

Read more: http://dailycalle...vzSuMKSG