Education and Scientism
Uploader Comments (XOmniverse)
Top Comments
-
As an unapologetic science advocate, I mostly approve of this video. I don't see the "religious" aspect of science as an epidemic, but basic thinking skills definitely lack.
At times I wonder how many teachers actually understand the science they teach. It's hard for me to criticize prior to college, however, since I was a young-earth creationist during my junior high and senior high years. I really thought I was a bad-ass, thumbing my nose at "evilution" and cosmology. Damn, dark years.
-
"i'm skeptical of homsechooling as a solution. a lot of parents who homeschool their kids are religious fundamentalists"
Homeschooling is not ideal when the parents are more abusive than the school. However, since schools are horribly abusive ... It seems like home will often be a better choice. An analogy that comes to mind of your comment would be that Vaginas can be really gross so don't fuck them ... however, I say just stay away from the gross ones.
All Comments (57)
-
Pentazoid 111's comments
-
This response is exactly the kind of thing that this video highlights - that everything can be reduced to a material construct.
-
@XOmniverse yes i agree with you, maths axioms should be taught (but, arent they?), what i meant is that induction has to be taught because is not clear, i mean it coudnt not work, but maths axioms are diffrent, i mean, they are exact definition, there is no possibility of error. Apart from that, what i think that teacher should teach the aplications that maths can have in real life, after all maths is a tool, it has no utility in itself. Not only math specially in others: history, phillosophy
i understand that induction method can be discussed, if something has happened many times is not clear it has to happen againg and again,, and that should be taught , but, in maths, which type of axioms do you think are not clear?
Paseosinperro 11 months ago
@Paseosinperro I don't know that any axioms are clearly taught in math classes. Just instructions with little or no attempt made to connect them to reality.
XOmniverse 11 months ago
I think that science could provide an explanation for why various people have possibly differing perceptions that may be based on the neurological activity of each individual brain to the same piece of art
Pentazoid111 1 year ago
@Pentazoid111 Even if that were so, does that tell you whether the art is good?
XOmniverse 1 year ago
I don't see why not. If food science can explain why each human being has a preference for a particular food based on the activity of the tastesbuds on the tongue , I don't see why neuroscience cannot explain why individuals see certain art as good and a certain piece of art as bad based on the neurological activity of their own brain. There are universals that human beings share and their are particulars that makes human beings independent from each other.
Pentazoid111 1 year ago
@Pentazoid111 Food science can possibly explain why a given food is pleasurable, and maybe science can do the same with art.
Science can't, however, make the claim that "pleasurable things are good." That's jumping the is/ought gap.
XOmniverse 1 year ago