You Asked For It, Part 1
Jan. 26th, 2005 09:18 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
emmagrant01This is for the ranty-pants meme. As a reminder, people requested that I rant about certain topics. I've taken a few liberties, and some of these are going to seem more like me expressing my opinion than an actual rant. :-)
Disclaimer: These were fired off quickly, so I didn't put a heck of a lot of thought into them. 'Cause if it was a thought-provoking, well-researched essay, it wouldn't be a rant, now would it? ;-) If you click a link and read something that pisses you off, let's have an intelligent, civil discussion about it, okay? This is supposed to be fun, not cause anyone stress. Have a nice day.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
skuf requested a rant on political correctness. Political correctness is a term invented by people who find the idea of showing respect to all human beings a tad much trouble to deal with. The thing is, labels are important: human beings categorize as a way of dealing with the complexity of the world around them. We categorize everything, but we also categorize people. Most of the historic labels given to minority groups weren't chosen by them; they were assigned by the dominant (usually white European) group. And those labels have meanings attached to them that remind us all that certain people were historically considered less equal than others. If you want to decide what label people should use for you, great! More power to you. Just let me know what it is, and I will abide by your wishes. I'm more than happy to assist you in your efforts to redefine who you are, because I'm a nice person.
And that, I think, is where it all started. Of course, some people don't like being told "It's not Native American, it's American Indian", and get all offended. Yeah, it's a bit of a hassle to keep track of things like that, but you know what? It's a way of showing respect to people who haven't historically had it. They aren't asking for huge handouts; they're asking for the right to choose what they're called. Get the fuck over it!
Of course, the label "political correctness" is now instantly attached to anything or anyone who goes out of their way to show respect for an under-respresented group. So you see, it's yet another attempt by these same people to put a derogatory label on an otherwise positive force for change.
Damn, I was trying really hard to work the word "hegemony" in there, but couldn't do it! ;-)
maracela and nmalfoy requested rants about how so many stupid movies get made. Stupid movies are released by major studios all the time, while solid, intelligent, socially relevant films by independent filmmakers get passed over again and again, if they are made at all. I would say that I'm stunned at the stupidity of the people who run the studios, but I'm not. Because they're not stupid. Their job is to make as much money for the studio as possible. And the best way to do that is to make the movies they think the American public wants. They do fairly extensive surveying to find out what the public wants, and they are generally right.
So what really pisses me off is that the average American moviegoer is a complete idiot who really wants to see Will Smith blow up aliens and spout witty lines, all to a hip-hop soundtrack. It's all their fault, because they willingly fork over $8-10 to see the same fucking movie over and over again, thereby validating the studio executives' belief that that was a good movie to make.
And yeah, every now and then a film that all the studios passed on will be a major blockbuster, so they regroup and squeeze out a few clones of it, but still don't trust that the American moviegoing public wants to see intelligent films. And you know what? They're right.
tea_and_toast requested a rant on creationism in the school science curriculum. Heh. See, I have buttons, and this is a damn big one.
Let me start by stating that I think we do a piss-poor job of teaching science and mathematics in this country. (I'm a bit of an expert on this, actually, which I'm sure is whytea_and_toast thought it would be entertaining to give me this topic.) Kids get out of school believing that math is a set of disconnected procedures they had to memorize, most of which are fairly useless, and that science is a set of disconnected theories and facts they had to memorize for the test, most of which are fairly useless.
Example: What are trees made of? That is, how do these massive organisms get the materials they need to grow so large? Think about that before you read on. A famous study was done a few years ago that asked lots of basic science questions to Harvard graduates, and they failed to answer them correctly in shocking numbers, thereby making the multitudes of us who didn't go to Harvard feel quite smug indeed. In response to this particular question, most responded that trees get their nutrients from water and from the soil, so they're made up of those things. Now, as any middle school student ought to know, this is WRONG. Bonus points to people who can give the correct answer to that question in a comment below.
The point here is that science is more than a set of theories and facts! It's a process for studying and learning about the world. We're constantly learning more, so our understanding of the way the world works changes every day. So yes, science is not static; it changes. Theories change. It's a human enterprise, and it's affected by people, politics, religion, culture, and so on. If you don't believe me, google "Galileo" and learn what happened to him.
Now, the difference between a theory and a fact is addressed in the elementary school curriculum, so it's a constant surprise to me that people confuse the two. Here's a refresher: facts are things that are true. Perhaps they were theories in the past, but there is overwhelming evidence for them, and they're just true. Fact: ice has lessmass density (shit, stupid mistake!) than water (which explains why it floats). Theories, on the other hand, are a way of understanding something. They're a model of sorts, and there is a great deal of evidence to support them, but they're a tool for understanding. So if they are good predictors of what should happen in various situations, fantastic. If they're a little off, we correct for that. If we find a better theory, we'll use it. We constantly poke and prod theories to see if we can make them even better. Example: light behaves like a particle and like a wave. (We can't seem to find one model, but hey, it works out most of the time.)
And here's the thing: Evolution is a fact. Not a theory. Period. Species evolve, sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly, but they do evolve. The fossil record is enormous and its existence is indisputable. Yes, Virginia, we have a common ancestor with apes. We evolved, clawed our way to the top of the food chain, and proceeded to use our evolutionary prowess to destroy our planet.
BUT, here's the thing: how did this evolution occur? That is the part that is theoretical. We have a lot of evidence, but it's difficult to say for sure. There are four theories of how evolution happens, commonly called the "four forces of evolution": gene flow, mutation, gentic drift, and natural selection. Most scientists believe evolution happens through a combination of those, and circumstances dictate which forces in particular pushed a species to evolve in a particular direction. We can't go back in time to measure atmospheric conditions or population sizes, so we do the best we can with the evidence we have. So the big question in not whether species evolve, but how they evolve.
Creationism was the way people thought the world came about thousands of years ago. They also thought the earth was flat then, that the sun revolved around us, and that women and people of certain skin colors were inferior. Why do so many people cling to this ancient myth about how the world was created, when they've rejected the other myths? I think it's because they just don't understand the nature of science. (And recall that I blame schools for this, not the individuals.) The thing is, evolution does not preclude the existence of God. I'm an atheist, so I won't try to explain how that would work, but I know plenty of religious people who understand this. Maybe a few of them would like to comment here?
So back to the main subject of what should be taught in schools: we're teaching kids science in science classes, not religion. The fact is that there aren't religious components in this branch of science. If you insert them, it's misrepresenting (and completely twisting) the discipline. We don't do this (intentionally) in any other subject. Why add in things that simply aren't there? If you want to teach the creation myth, fine -- just do it in a lit class, or someplace else where myths are discussed and analyzed.
And "creation science"? Oxymoron from hell. I think I'll stop now...
Part two will come later today. This was fun, actually!
Disclaimer: These were fired off quickly, so I didn't put a heck of a lot of thought into them. 'Cause if it was a thought-provoking, well-researched essay, it wouldn't be a rant, now would it? ;-) If you click a link and read something that pisses you off, let's have an intelligent, civil discussion about it, okay? This is supposed to be fun, not cause anyone stress. Have a nice day.
skuf requested a rant on political correctness. Political correctness is a term invented by people who find the idea of showing respect to all human beings a tad much trouble to deal with. The thing is, labels are important: human beings categorize as a way of dealing with the complexity of the world around them. We categorize everything, but we also categorize people. Most of the historic labels given to minority groups weren't chosen by them; they were assigned by the dominant (usually white European) group. And those labels have meanings attached to them that remind us all that certain people were historically considered less equal than others. If you want to decide what label people should use for you, great! More power to you. Just let me know what it is, and I will abide by your wishes. I'm more than happy to assist you in your efforts to redefine who you are, because I'm a nice person.And that, I think, is where it all started. Of course, some people don't like being told "It's not Native American, it's American Indian", and get all offended. Yeah, it's a bit of a hassle to keep track of things like that, but you know what? It's a way of showing respect to people who haven't historically had it. They aren't asking for huge handouts; they're asking for the right to choose what they're called. Get the fuck over it!
Of course, the label "political correctness" is now instantly attached to anything or anyone who goes out of their way to show respect for an under-respresented group. So you see, it's yet another attempt by these same people to put a derogatory label on an otherwise positive force for change.
Damn, I was trying really hard to work the word "hegemony" in there, but couldn't do it! ;-)
maracela and nmalfoy requested rants about how so many stupid movies get made. Stupid movies are released by major studios all the time, while solid, intelligent, socially relevant films by independent filmmakers get passed over again and again, if they are made at all. I would say that I'm stunned at the stupidity of the people who run the studios, but I'm not. Because they're not stupid. Their job is to make as much money for the studio as possible. And the best way to do that is to make the movies they think the American public wants. They do fairly extensive surveying to find out what the public wants, and they are generally right.So what really pisses me off is that the average American moviegoer is a complete idiot who really wants to see Will Smith blow up aliens and spout witty lines, all to a hip-hop soundtrack. It's all their fault, because they willingly fork over $8-10 to see the same fucking movie over and over again, thereby validating the studio executives' belief that that was a good movie to make.
And yeah, every now and then a film that all the studios passed on will be a major blockbuster, so they regroup and squeeze out a few clones of it, but still don't trust that the American moviegoing public wants to see intelligent films. And you know what? They're right.
tea_and_toast requested a rant on creationism in the school science curriculum. Heh. See, I have buttons, and this is a damn big one. Let me start by stating that I think we do a piss-poor job of teaching science and mathematics in this country. (I'm a bit of an expert on this, actually, which I'm sure is why
tea_and_toast thought it would be entertaining to give me this topic.) Kids get out of school believing that math is a set of disconnected procedures they had to memorize, most of which are fairly useless, and that science is a set of disconnected theories and facts they had to memorize for the test, most of which are fairly useless. Example: What are trees made of? That is, how do these massive organisms get the materials they need to grow so large? Think about that before you read on. A famous study was done a few years ago that asked lots of basic science questions to Harvard graduates, and they failed to answer them correctly in shocking numbers, thereby making the multitudes of us who didn't go to Harvard feel quite smug indeed. In response to this particular question, most responded that trees get their nutrients from water and from the soil, so they're made up of those things. Now, as any middle school student ought to know, this is WRONG. Bonus points to people who can give the correct answer to that question in a comment below.
The point here is that science is more than a set of theories and facts! It's a process for studying and learning about the world. We're constantly learning more, so our understanding of the way the world works changes every day. So yes, science is not static; it changes. Theories change. It's a human enterprise, and it's affected by people, politics, religion, culture, and so on. If you don't believe me, google "Galileo" and learn what happened to him.
Now, the difference between a theory and a fact is addressed in the elementary school curriculum, so it's a constant surprise to me that people confuse the two. Here's a refresher: facts are things that are true. Perhaps they were theories in the past, but there is overwhelming evidence for them, and they're just true. Fact: ice has less
And here's the thing: Evolution is a fact. Not a theory. Period. Species evolve, sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly, but they do evolve. The fossil record is enormous and its existence is indisputable. Yes, Virginia, we have a common ancestor with apes. We evolved, clawed our way to the top of the food chain, and proceeded to use our evolutionary prowess to destroy our planet.
BUT, here's the thing: how did this evolution occur? That is the part that is theoretical. We have a lot of evidence, but it's difficult to say for sure. There are four theories of how evolution happens, commonly called the "four forces of evolution": gene flow, mutation, gentic drift, and natural selection. Most scientists believe evolution happens through a combination of those, and circumstances dictate which forces in particular pushed a species to evolve in a particular direction. We can't go back in time to measure atmospheric conditions or population sizes, so we do the best we can with the evidence we have. So the big question in not whether species evolve, but how they evolve.
Creationism was the way people thought the world came about thousands of years ago. They also thought the earth was flat then, that the sun revolved around us, and that women and people of certain skin colors were inferior. Why do so many people cling to this ancient myth about how the world was created, when they've rejected the other myths? I think it's because they just don't understand the nature of science. (And recall that I blame schools for this, not the individuals.) The thing is, evolution does not preclude the existence of God. I'm an atheist, so I won't try to explain how that would work, but I know plenty of religious people who understand this. Maybe a few of them would like to comment here?
So back to the main subject of what should be taught in schools: we're teaching kids science in science classes, not religion. The fact is that there aren't religious components in this branch of science. If you insert them, it's misrepresenting (and completely twisting) the discipline. We don't do this (intentionally) in any other subject. Why add in things that simply aren't there? If you want to teach the creation myth, fine -- just do it in a lit class, or someplace else where myths are discussed and analyzed.
And "creation science"? Oxymoron from hell. I think I'll stop now...
Part two will come later today. This was fun, actually!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-01-26 08:22 pm (UTC)Photosynthesis -- yes! People seem to anthropomorphize plants and want to attribute animal activities like eating and breathing to them. I think that leads to a lot of misconceptions, because the processes just aren't analogous. And then there's the ineptly-named substance we call "plant food", that you put in the soil. That sure doesn't help people understand that plants make their own "food" out of the air around them.