SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Fluffeh writes:
"For a few years the National Research Council, National Science Teachers Association, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have been working to put together a set of standards for teaching science in public education schools. So far, nine states and the District of Columbia have adopted the standards. Wyoming doesn't appear to have issues with evolution. Instead, climate science appears to be the problem. That's not because any of the legislators have actually studied the science involved and found it lacking. The issue appears to be solely with the implications of the science.
State Representative Matt Teeters had this to say '[The standards] handle global warming as settled science. There's all kind of social implications involved in that that I don't think would be good for Wyoming.' Specifically, Teeters seems to think that having citizens of the state accept climate science would 'wreck Wyoming's economy,' which relies heavily on fossil fuel production."
(Score: 1) by Angry Jesus on Monday March 17 2014, @03:30PM
When your go to counter-example is scientific racism [wikipedia.org] you know you are on rock-solid ground. What's next? Will you be telling us that the overwhelming majority of anthropologists believe that race is the primary determinant of intelligence?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday March 18 2014, @01:55PM
Although calm and reasoned appeals to authority via wikipedia (as if wikipedia is much of an authority) or scientists does superficially appear to undermine by claim that its the most toxic discussion topic imaginable, in context in a semi-educational setting I don't think calm and reasoned logical fallacies would be likely, probably the result would more likely to resemble a riot as I claim.
Another way to look at it, is I'm trying to identify which discussion topic is most likely to incite a riot in a semi-educational setting, and even if I step back and agree its at least in theory possible to discuss in a civilized manner as per the above paragraph, I still think that particular topic can still remain as "the most likely of all topics to incite a riot". As a counterexample to this paragraph, I would have to admit defeat if you provided a counterexample of an even more "likely to incite a riot" discussion topic.
So you bring up a good point as a theoretical counter example, but I still claim that even if I take two small steps back from my original claim, its still fundamentally a correct argument that its the most riot inducing of all topics. Have a nice day!
(Score: 1) by Angry Jesus on Tuesday March 18 2014, @02:12PM
Your position appears to be that scientific racism, a theory barely more viable than homeopathy, is the equivalent of climate change because the concept pisses people off. That is to completely miss the forest for the trees.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday March 18 2014, @02:21PM
I more or less agree with your assessment, and explain my reasoning as incitement to riot has no educational value. Wasn't the whole point, to provide educational value?