Points Inflation

Jammyc

Sorry if I seem to be butting in

I agree with both of you.
My english class for example, is messers paradise.
Teacher has no control. But I know if I was motivated, I could get a really good LC from that teacher.
However, there are just some cases where it just cant be overcome.
Like last year my business teacher left and the school only got a replacment about 2 months later. The class has 2 of the biggest twats in the year in it.
(you know the people, teachers see them on the list and go "oh for Fucks sake not them")
That class last year was a joke. Even the brightest student couldnt have done well.

EDIT: In summary, it depends on the severity of the case in question and the willingness of the student to work normally harder than they would to get the grade.

PurpleFistMixer

I agree, Jammyc.

And K4t, I shall keep believing it, because I went to a "crappy" school, I was motivated, I got 600 points. I don't think I'm some bizarre special person, so I think other people can do it too.

PurpleFistMixer

PurpleFistMixer wrote: »

Also, it'd be lovely if LC Physics had the laws of thermodynamics in it, it might stop people abusing the concept of entropy. Bah humbug.

Have you ever encountered somebody who uses the concept of entropy to "disprove" evolution? Funny.

PurpleFistMixer

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Have you ever encountered somebody who uses the concept of entropy to "disprove" evolution? Funny.

Yes.
*tears out hair*

whadabouchasir

Fad wrote: »

As for teaching Creationism, I dont see any problem........I mean I believe its wrong, but I dont KNOW its wrong. (Also theres a few other sides to Creation in the world built in 7 days story). But if a school has a Catholic Ethos, it'd be their responsibility to teach what the CC teach, and the CC teaches Creation, so..................it'd be a bit wrong to say, wel we're gonna teach you something, we dont think its the truth but HEY humour us!

I go to a catholic school where evolution is taught and our religion teacher told us that creationism is not to be taken literally. Also if a school decides to disregard proven scientific fact when teaching its students then that doesn't say much for the quality of the teaching then does it?

whadabouchasir

whadabouchasir wrote: »

I mean one private shcool near me teaches its students creationism as fact.

That definitely shouldn't be allowed to happen. No way. That's absolutely ridiculous.

Fad wrote: »

As for teaching Creationism, I dont see any problem........I mean I believe its wrong, but I dont KNOW its wrong. (Also theres a few other sides to Creation in the world built in 7 days story). But if a school has a Catholic Ethos, it'd be their responsibility to teach what the CC teach, and the CC teaches Creation, so..................it'd be a bit wrong to say, wel we're gonna teach you something, we dont think its the truth but HEY humour us!

I've a fundamental disagreement with you there. Creationism should most certainly not be thought; at least not under the guise of science or fact. If it is to be thought, it should be thought more so as philosophy/literature, than as science or as something to actually believe.

Fair enough, a school might teach old-earth creationism; that's relatively ok, as long as it's not the only thing being thought to them about the issue (i.e. as long as things pertaining to cosmology or evolution are still thought as factual). But, young-earth creationism should be confined to the depths of humanities past. Never, ever should it be thought in a school. At least not outside the realm of a fiction/literature class.

Fad

whadabouchasir wrote: »

I go to a catholic school where evolution is taught and our religion teacher told us that creationism is not to be taken literally. Also if a school decides to disregard proven scientific fact when teaching its students then that doesn't say much for the quality of the teaching then does it?

I did state that there's a difference between Creation and the whole "7 Days story", so creation can be taken into account if you believe in it. Notice that the Big Bang are still regarded as "Theories", notice how it isnt the "Law" or "Principle" of Evolution, so really a school teaching both or one more than the other is just trying to cover all the bases:pac:

Is your RE teacher a Priest? If he/she isnt that may have just been a misunderstanding of some Catholic Dogma, ya know the bit that about God Creating the world? It may specify 7 days, but thats probably a metaphor or how it was explained to people at the time, some people take it as literal truth, and I dont see the problem with faith. I dont believe in creationism, but using it as an arguement against something is a bit hollow tbh.


This is not the thread for this!

whadabouchasir

If creationism teaches that the world is only 6,00 years old but fossils millions of years old have been found then surely this proves creationism false

Fad

Fad wrote: »

Notice that the Big Bang are still regarded as "Theories", notice how it isnt the "Law" or "Principle" of Evolution, so really a school teaching both or one more than the other is just trying to cover all the bases:pac:

I just have to point out that the word theory in a scientific sense is completely different than the way we use it every day. This is a common attack against evolution, and other scientific ideas, believe it or not.

A "Law" is a concise statement (or indeed formula/set of formulae) that describes a particular behaviour in nature. Again, it's meaning differs from it's common, everyday, meaning. There is nothing to say that a scientific law cannot be broken, it just never has been observed to have been. A principle, is, in essence, the same thing as a scientific law. A principle describes something in nature.

Now, a theory is a set of scientific laws and/or principles which describe a more complex behaviour. But, just because it's called a theory, doesn't mean it isn't factual. A scientific theory gets as much respect in the scientific commnunity as a law or principle does. To reiterate, it isn't just a "theory" in the everyday sense of the word. And anyway, it'll always be impossible to prove a theory, as science doesn't prove anything: It never has and never will.

Sorry for going off-topic. I just felt I needed to clear that up.

Fad

whadabouchasir wrote: »

If creationism teaches that the world is only 6,00 years old but fossils millions of years old have been found then surely this proves creationism false

600?:pac:

I've never heard a Catholic say that, NEVER, only baptists, and they are silly people!

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I just have to point out that the word theory in a scientific sense is completely different than the way we use it every day. This is a common attack against evolution, and other scientific ideas, believe it or not.

A "Law" is a concise statement (or indeed formula/set of formulae) that describes a particular behaviour in nature. Again, it's meaning differs from it's common, everyday, meaning. There is nothing to say that a scientific law cannot be broken, it just never has been observed to have been. A principle, is, in essence, the same thing as a scientific law. A principle describes something in nature.

Now, a theory is a set of scientific laws and/or principles which describe a more complex behaviour. But, just because it's called a theory, doesn't mean it isn't factual. A scientific theory gets as much respect in the scientific commnunity as a law or principle does. To reiterate, it isn't just a "theory" in the everyday sense of the word. And anyway, it'll always be impossible to prove a theory, as science doesn't prove anything: It never has and never will.

I wasnt discussing the finer points of the English Language, I was saying that if something is a Law it is fact, when something is a still a theory it is supported by evidence (and with the ones we're talking about, I accept this evidence as truth) but it can still be disputed and isnt univerally accepted as a DEFINITE fact (The people who dispute it are silly but how and ever)

My point is, that if you attend a Catholic school, the school kind of assumes that you are a Catholic and believe in it all. So, they impart the Catholic perspective on to you. There are far more ridiculous things you could mention if your just having a whinge about things the church teaches :rolleyes:

Fad

Fad wrote: »

I wasnt discussing the finer points of the English Language, I was saying that if something is a Law it is fact, when something is a still a theory it is supported by evidence (and with the ones we're talking about, I accept this evidence as truth) but it can still be disputed and isnt univerally accepted as a DEFINITE fact (The people who dispute it are silly but how and ever)

Sorry for being pedantic here, but I don't think you understand the word theory in a scientific context; as you've made the same mistake again.

Here, from Wikipedia:

"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena"

For example, again, from Wikipedia:

"The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease."

You see, the word theory in a scientific context is as good as the word fact is in an everyday context. It's just a pet hate of mine when people use the word theory to dispute the validity of a scientific idea.

Just wanted to clear this up. And again, sorry for going off topic.

Fad

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Sorry for being pedantic here, but I don't think you understand the word theory in a scientific context; as you've made the same mistake again.

Here, from Wikipedia:

"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena"

For example, again, from Wikipedia:

"The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease."

You see, the word theory in a scientific context is as good as the word fact is in an everyday context. It's just a pet hate of mine when people use the word theory to dispute the validity of a scientific idea.

Just wanted to clear this up. And again, sorry for going off topic.

You're missing the point FFS this isnt a debate about the wording!

Theory still doesnt mean it isnt disputed, I see people pointing out holes in evolution but not in say..........The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

Also Wikipedia? Good Plan In a real argument (And I stress real!) Wikipedia=A bad idea:pac:

Fad

Fad wrote: »

You're missing the point FFS this isnt a debate about the wording!

Theory still doesnt mean it isnt disputed, I see people pointing out holes in evolution but not in say..........The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

Also Wikipedia? Good Plan In a real argument (And I stress real!) Wikipedia=A bad idea:pac:

Yes, I know Wikipedia isn't great; But, I can find many other sources that say the same thing about the word theory, and about what it means in a scientific context. I'm not arguing over semantics here.

So, you're saying that when an idea has the word theory attached to it, it is less valid than, say, a principle? That's what I've understood you to have said. How about Einsteins special and general theories of relativity? Or how about quantum theory? Do two of the most empirically tested and confirmed (and I'll also add, undisputed. Also, it has been said that quantum theory is the most precise idea ever put forward by science. In that experimental results agree with predicted results with astonishing precision; and all this from a theory?) descriptions of nature lose respect because they are meer theories?