[theolein]

Originally posted by Logic:
IMO it seems like many Americans today are confusing Patriotism with Nationalism.

pa�tri�ot�ism
Pronunciation: 'pA-trE-&-"ti-z&m, chiefly British 'pa-
Function: noun
: love for or devotion to one's country

na�tion�al�ism
Pronunciation: 'nash-n&-"li-z&m, 'na-sh&-n&l-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups


But that's just my humble opinion.

Deserves to be repeated. Where does patriotism stop and nationalism start? Does asking critical questions make one not a patriot, or is that part of patriotism? Does attacking people who ask critical questions make one a patriot, a nationalist or a dumb bastard?

[Jaey]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Theory does not equal fact. I have never heard of a theorum of evolution, just theory of evolution. Requiring someone to believe in something that has not been proven true is wrong.

Yes, but so much of medical science is built around the theory of evolution, people who don't believe in it should find work elsewhere.

[slimshady023]

Originally posted by turtle777:
e) lack of options

-t

ha ha! Very funny, my friend. I always enjoy extra option (e), the alternative answer that never seems to make it on the multiple-choice tests.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by Jaey:
Yes, but so much of medical science is built around the theory of evolution, people who don't believe in it should find work elsewhere.

So our medicine is based on the fact that one thing sporadically turns into another?

[Jaey]

Originally posted by djohnson:
So our medicine is based on the fact that one thing sporadically turns into another?

I'm talking about Darwin's theory of natural selection. I don't know about the other guys.

[deej5871]

Originally posted by Jaey:
I'm talking about Darwin's theory of natural selection. I don't know about the other guys.

Even so..what does natural selection have to do with how to heal a sick person, or cure a disease?

[Jaey]

Originally posted by deej5871:
Even so..what does natural selection have to do with how to heal a sick person, or cure a disease?

Well, any field of genetics requires it. Different viruses have evolved immunities to vaccines, that kind of stuff. I think it's just a basic principle that people need to be aware of. Like the quadratic formula if you're going to be a mathematician:
(-b+-sqrt(b^2-4ac))/2a

You need to understand the basics before you can learn the hard stuff. I'm sure most hardcore mathematicians don't even solve quadratics on a regular basis...

[deej5871]

Originally posted by Jaey:
Well, any field of genetics requires it. Different viruses have evolved immunities to vaccines, that kind of stuff. I think it's just a basic principle that people need to be aware of. Like the quadratic formula if you're going to be a mathematician:
(-b+-sqrt(b^2-4ac))/2a

You need to understand the basics before you can learn the hard stuff. I'm sure most hardcore mathematicians don't even solve quadratics on a regular basis...

Genetics is genetics. A medical doctor heals your current sickness, which has nothing to do with genetics unless you got the disease from your parents. Unless you're doing some genetic engineering to get rid of a defective gene, the medical field really doesn't require a belief in evolution.

I would equate that quadratic formula for mathematicians with knowing how to do stiches for a doctor. This is something basic a doctor should know, and it doesn't have anything to do with evolution.

Why are we arguing about this after the fact anyway? There are already doctors who don't believe in evolution anyway. What harm is there in a few more? It's not like they're going to revert to old ways where the solution to anything is a blood-letting. A creationist doctor is just as capable as an evolutionist doctor.

[dgs212]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Theory does not equal fact. I have never heard of a theorum of evolution, just theory of evolution. Requiring someone to believe in something that has not been proven true is wrong.

you do understand that the word "theory" has different connotations in the realm of science that when used by laypersons? For example, the explanation for why you don't go spinning off into space is called...wait for it...the theory of gravity. Do you believe in gravity? You do ?!? But...it's just a theory!

[Millennium]

Originally posted by dgs212:
you do understand that the word "theory" has different connotations in the realm of science that when used by laypersons?

Yes, but not by much. What a layperson calls a theory, a scientist would call a hypothesis: an educated guess. A theory (in scientific terms) stands up under testing, but theories are not to be held as gospel either.

The whole scientific method is based around disproving theories, after all. The major problem with science these days is that they're ignoring that final step in the scientific method. The results of an experiment are supposed to form a new hypothesis, which is then tested in another experiment, which is used to refine the hypothesis, and so forth. What the media seems fascinated with today, however, is only the first studies; they don't bother with the experimental repetition and peer review which is the basis of all sound science. Because the media doesn't report, there's less money involved, meaning fewer opportunities to perform this necessary repetition. End result: there's so much junk science nowadays, particularly in certain fields, that it's hard to sort out the wheat from the chaff anymore.

For the record, in scientific terms there is also a difference between a theory and a fact. Namely, a fact is directly-observable datum (the plural of which is data) about the world.

For example, the explanation for why you don't go spinning off into space is called...wait for it...the theory of gravity. Do you believe in gravity? You do ?!? But...it's just a theory!

Um, no. Gravity is directly observable, therefore it is a fact. There are theories as to how it works, but that's a different subject altogether.

The same could be said of global warming. Is the average temperature of the Earth getting hotter? Yes. Do we know why? No.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Um, no. Gravity is directly observable, therefore it is a fact. There are theories as to how it works, but that's a different subject altogether.

The same could be said of global warming. Is the average temperature of the Earth getting hotter? Yes. Do we know why? No.

Evolution is also directly observable. In fact I've conducted experiments that are based on the theory of evolution.

Put a whole lot of bacteria in a petri disc. Add penicillin. Let it grow for a couple of generations. Take out the bacteria that lived. Place them in another petri disc. Add more penicillin. Do this a couple of times and all of a sudden you have a strain of bacteria that is resistant to penicillin. Also known as evolution in progress.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Logic:
Evolution is also directly observable. In fact I've conducted experiments that are based on the theory of evolution.

Put a whole lot of bacteria in a petri disc. Add penicillin. Let it grow for a couple of generations. Take out the bacteria that lived. Place them in another petri disc. Add more penicillin. Do this a couple of times and all of a sudden you have a strain of bacteria that is resistant to penicillin. Also known as evolution in progress.

No one argues with that. But what you have isn't yet a new species. People have directly observed species changing over time on a microscopic scale, but no one had yet directly observed speciation (that is, the forming of completely new species).

Note: I believe in evolution as the mechanism of creation. I am not out to prove or disprove anything here; just to make sure that terms are clearly defined.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Millennium:
No one argues with that. But what you have isn't yet a new species. People have directly observed species changing over time on a microscopic scale, but no one had yet directly observed speciation (that is, the forming of completely new species).

Note: I believe in evolution as the mechanism of creation. I am not out to prove or disprove anything here; just to make sure that terms are clearly defined.

Well that's the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. And the definition of species is something that isn't very well agreed upon. Especially not when it comes to micro-organisms. But proving that a species can adapt and change it's genome(by selection) you show that it is possible for species to over time become completely different.

But we aren't in too much disagreement here so lets just let the creationists enter and have fun

[milenko11]

It is the LAW of Gravity. It is not a theory.

[djohnson]

I think some people are confusing adaptation vs evolution. Bacteria becoming resistant is adaptation, but if they were to sprout legs and walk out of the dish, that would be evolution.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by milenko11:
It is the LAW of Gravity. It is not a theory.

And it's NOT the LAW of evolution !

-t

[Nodnarb]

Hey Jaey have you gotten the test back yet?

[Jaey]

Originally posted by brandon420506:
Hey Jaey have you gotten the test back yet?

No, it's too much for her to grade a quiz in two days, I guess.

But I'm being unfair. I guess I'll get it back on monday.

[Ghoser777]

Originally posted by Jaey:
I think it's just a basic principle that people need to be aware of. Like the quadratic formula if you're going to be a mathematician:
(-b+-sqrt(b^2-4ac))/2a

Knowing the quadratic formula has NOTHING to do with being a mathematician.

[Lancer409]

wow .. what a load of bullshiz ...

[Jaey]

For those who are curious, I still have not gotten my quiz back, which is strange because it's been five days (two of which were the weekend...)

This is quite surprising to me because most teachers return these short quizzes the day after they're taken...

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Jaey:
For those who are curious, I still have not gotten my quiz back, which is strange because it's been five days (two of which were the weekend...)

This is quite surprising to me because most teachers return these short quizzes the day after they're taken...

Still no test?

[Jaey]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Still no test?

Nope. I'm going to ask about it tomorrow, I guess.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by djohnson:
I think some people are confusing adaptation vs evolution. Bacteria becoming resistant is adaptation, but if they were to sprout legs and walk out of the dish, that would be evolution.

one is the mechanism of the other.

[dcolton]

How about an update, Jaey

[Lancer409]

yeah .. did you ever post the scan/digital pic?

[Zimphire]

Wow what a thread derailing above.

And no one got banned for it...

[Luca Rescigno]

Yeah seriously... from a test containing a sensitive political issue to evolution? How the heck...?

Anyway, my take on that kind of question is that it was an attempt at coming up with an example of patriotism... and in reality it was just an extremely poor choice of such an example. You said this teacher's husband is very pro-Bush? I think it's likely she saw the question and didn't think twice about it. I don't know the teacher, but I don't think there are many people who would purposely put a question like that in a test.

[Jaey]

I actually got the quiz back on Friday but I haven't been able to come to MacNN 'till today.


The question is:

The willingness of a citizen to join the army when drafted is an example of which of the following civic virtues:

a. civility
b. compromise
c. patriotism
d. justice

And I wrote next to it: "None. It is against my moral principles to answer this question with the given answers."

And my teacher wrote next to that: "If a citizen does this, it would be an example of patriotism. This question does not ask you to support what this individual is doing. You just need to show that you recognize that he is demonstrating one example of patriotism."

Of course, my argument was that willingness to join the army after being drafted is not patriotism. Basically, what I got out of her note was "This citizen is doing something patriotic. You don't have to support the draft, but this citizen is being patriotic."

So I talked to her. I think she meant to say that if this citizen was drafted and they felt they supported their country in the war, their willingness to join the army was patriotic. But from the way the question was phrased, it seemed to imply that joining the army when drafted is a patriotic thing to do. I kinda saw where she was coming from, but I still think a sensitive issue such as this one should not be used in a quiz like this.

[voyageur]

This kind of question is just not suited to multiple choice answers. Silly teacher.

[andi*pandi]

It was a badly worded question. As others have pointed out, joining the army after BEING DRAFTED is merely avoiding jailtime. Joining the army in time of trouble WITHOUT DRAFT might be considered patriotism.

you tell her the folks on the intarweb said so.

[MilkmanDan]

e) Needs college money.

This answer would hold true for a large cross section of our National Guard, which is being used as an army due to the lack of enough volunteers for the army. Just my 2 cents.

[nath]

Originally posted by Jaey:
I actually got the quiz back on Friday but I haven't been able to come to MacNN 'till today.


The question is: And I wrote next to it: "None. It is against my moral principles to answer this question with the given answers."

And my teacher wrote next to that: "If a citizen does this, it would be an example of patriotism. This question does not ask you to support what this individual is doing. You just need to show that you recognize that he is demonstrating one example of patriotism."

Of course, my argument was that willingness to join the army after being drafted is not patriotism. Basically, what I got out of her note was "This citizen is doing something patriotic. You don't have to support the draft, but this citizen is being patriotic."

So I talked to her. I think she meant to say that if this citizen was drafted and they felt they supported their country in the war, their willingness to join the army was patriotic. But from the way the question was phrased, it seemed to imply that joining the army when drafted is a patriotic thing to do. I kinda saw where she was coming from, but I still think a sensitive issue such as this one should not be used in a quiz like this.

That is absolutely terrifying, and I think you are being too generous to her opinions. At the heart of the question is an accusation of thoughtcrime, since patriotism (and the other terms used) are subjective in this context. The teacher may think the draftee is being patriotic. That doesn't necessarily make it so, because he/she is not being given an opportunity to express their patriotism, they are being legally compelled to serve in the armed forces.

As the subject of the question has already been drafted, the only possible factual answer is 'the citizen is fulfilling a legal requirement of the state'. That would be both truthful and factual.

[Gankdawg]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
LAWL you have to be kidding. It's usually the evil liberals that try to influence not only HS kids, but College kids as well.


I don't know HOW many College kids I have ran into that have had their beliefs molded by a professor.

[sambeau]

Originally posted by Jaey:
"A citizen who shows a willingness to join the army after being drafted is displaying"

passivism (as opposed to pacifism)

[Zimphire]

So in other words.. not the big conspiracy some were making it out to be.