Creationism and homeschooling

[Victor]

There's been some discussion of homeschooling over in this thread, so I thought I'd ask about this article I saw a while back talking about Creationism being put forth in home-school texts. Does anyone know if it's as big an issue as the article implies?

[Syock]

Does anyone know if it's as big an issue as the article implies?

What exact issue are you referring to?  The lack of material that has the information you want, or that people are religious?

The books at public school sure have their biases too.  They like to rewrite history.  

Unfortunately the truth in many things is lost.  People believe what they want to believe. 

[Victor]

The lack of material with the information I want, mainly.

Slightly broader question though, then, keying off your response, how do we change things so that history is no longer rewritten? Or am I being naive?

[MAM]

The lack of material with the information I want, mainly.

Slightly broader question though, then, keying off your response, how do we change things so that history is no longer rewritten? Or am I being naive?

One of the reasons I don't take history to seriously is that it is always tainted with the bias of the author. Who if we've heard of him is probably on the side that won the war.

[Syock]

The lack of material with the information I want, mainly.

Slightly broader question though, then, keying off your response, how do we change things so that history is no longer rewritten? Or am I being naive?

One of the reasons I don't take history to seriously is that it is always tainted with the bias of the author. Who if we've heard of him is probably on the side that won the war.

Unfortunately the best way to find the likely truth in history is a pain in the rear.  I don't think there is a way to stop the victor (Edit: no pun intended) from writing history from their skewed perspective.  Everyone has a bias.  

[MAM]

The lack of material with the information I want, mainly.

Slightly broader question though, then, keying off your response, how do we change things so that history is no longer rewritten? Or am I being naive?

One of the reasons I don't take history to seriously is that it is always tainted with the bias of the author. Who if we've heard of him is probably on the side that won the war.

Unfortunately the best way to find the likely truth in history is a pain in the rear.  I don't think there is a way to stop the victor (Edit: no pun intended) from writing history from their skewed perspective.  Everyone has a bias.  

Yerp, bias is why science uses blinding.

[Victor]

Hmm. I guess I need to read up on scientific method in history then, so I can learn how they generally avoid such bias. It's hard to have blinding in historical research. o.o

Do you guys not use historical examples like the Old West and Iceland to argue for the possibility of peaceful anarchy then? Do you just try to argue economic theory, or what? Or do you not argue much at all?

[MAM]

Hmm. I guess I need to read up on scientific method in history then, so I can learn how they generally avoid such bias. It's hard to have blinding in historical research. o.o

Do you guys not use historical examples like the Old West and Iceland to argue for the possibility of peaceful anarchy then? Do you just try to argue economic theory, or what? Or do you not argue much at all?

I stick to consequentialist and deontological arguments instead of historical ones. The hard sciences use blinding I don't think the soft sciences can.

[Syock]

Hmm. I guess I need to read up on scientific method in history then, so I can learn how they generally avoid such bias. It's hard to have blinding in historical research. o.o

Do you guys not use historical examples like the Old West and Iceland to argue for the possibility of peaceful anarchy then? Do you just try to argue economic theory, or what? Or do you not argue much at all?

I think most people believe the old west was incredibly violent. 

Iceland? 

[KaFunf]

Homeschooling was started originally by conservative Christians who didn't want their kids to be indoctrinated in State schools. Creationism is pushed solely by conservative Christians. If you want to homeschool find groups that don't teach religious bullshit.

http://humanisthomeschoolers.com/

[Krantz]

Freedom of religion is fine in my book - and teaching kids creationism isn't even more harmful to them than telling them about the current consensus of mostly government-paid scientists which (probably) also is wrong. Have you heard the recent theory (published in Science or something like that) that there wasn't really any Big-Bang? My point is - so what? - nothing really changed, even for any scientist's carriers.

[Syock]

Freedom of religion is fine in my book - and teaching kids creationism isn't even more harmful to them than telling them about the current consensus of mostly government-paid scientists which (probably) also is wrong. Have you heard the recent theory (published in Science or something like that) that there wasn't really any Big-Bang? My point is - so what? - nothing really changed, even for any scientist's carriers.

There are a few of these theories that are generally accepted that I find hard to swallow.  The big bang theory is one of them.  The funny thing is that even though it is called a theory, if you suggest there might be an alternative to such a widely accepted thought, people think you are crazy/stupid.  That is better than what Galileo went through though.   

[MAM]

Freedom of religion is fine in my book - and teaching kids creationism isn't even more harmful to them than telling them about the current consensus of mostly government-paid scientists which (probably) also is wrong. Have you heard the recent theory (published in Science or something like that) that there wasn't really any Big-Bang? My point is - so what? - nothing really changed, even for any scientist's carriers.

There are a few of these theories that are generally accepted that I find hard to swallow.  The big bang theory is one of them.  The funny thing is that even though it is called a theory, if you suggest there might be an alternative to such a widely accepted thought, people think you are crazy/stupid.  That is better than what Galileo went through though.   

What do you think the big bang is? I listened to a couple Smoot lectures a while back and thought it interesting. But I've found that like evolution people tend to be misinformed.

[Syock]

What do you think the big bang is? I listened to a couple Smoot lectures a while back and thought it interesting. But I've found that like evolution people tend to be misinformed.

Heh, I won't take that as the insult that it came across as.  

[Victor]

Homeschooling was started originally by conservative Christians who didn't want their kids to be indoctrinated in State schools. Creationism is pushed solely by conservative Christians. If you want to homeschool find groups that don't teach religious bullshit.

http://humanisthomeschoolers.com/

Thanks for the site!

Freedom of religion is fine in my book - and teaching kids creationism isn't even more harmful to them than telling them about the current consensus of mostly government-paid scientists which (probably) also is wrong. Have you heard the recent theory (published in Science or something like that) that there wasn't really any Big-Bang? My point is - so what? - nothing really changed, even for any scientist's carriers.

Can you find a link to the article you're referring to? I haven't heard of it no. I would say if the big bang theory was ousted by another theory that would be a fairly major change.

I'm fine with freedom of religion, though in my personal opinion I do think religion can be harmful. I of course wouldn't want people to be force-taught anything, religious or scientific. But I do think I disagree with you in regard to teaching people the current scientific consensus. If you show people the actual evidence behind the theories, and if they are able to clearly understand the evidence for themselves, then I think that's highly beneficial. If they don't want to learn, I wouldn't try and force it on them, but if they do want to learn and they want me to help them learn, then obviously I'm going to try and show them the view I think is correct.

Hmm. I guess I need to read up on scientific method in history then, so I can learn how they generally avoid such bias. It's hard to have blinding in historical research. o.o

Do you guys not use historical examples like the Old West and Iceland to argue for the possibility of peaceful anarchy then? Do you just try to argue economic theory, or what? Or do you not argue much at all?

I think most people believe the old west was incredibly violent. 

Iceland? 

I suppose most people probably do think the Old West was incredibly violent. I think that's part of the problem, I think they are incorrect in thinking that, and I think it would help to show them their error.

On Iceland I was referring to the work done by David Friedman and Jesse Byock. Iceland, as far as I can tell so far, existed for a little over a century and a half with no taxation, force-monopolies, or central executive authority, (that is, in a state of anarchy,) had somewhere around 60,000 people, and was more peaceful than the U.S. in 1979, when Friedman wrote his article. After a little over a century and a half, a "church tithe", (which some historians count as a tax,) was introduced and competition for "tax"-money among different chieftains, who had previously acted as private enforcers of Icelandic law, slowly resulted in an increase in violence in their society. Power was concentrated in fewer and fewer hands until the majority of Icelanders decided to let a neighboring king, who had been pressuring chieftains to take over on his behalf, go ahead and take charge of their society. By Friedman's estimate this period of intense civil warfare among the chieftans was about equally as violent as the U.S. in 1979.

...

I guess maybe that was more than you wished to know actually.

Anyways, I'm a scientific skeptic, so I collect case-studies to demonstrate my case to people. I like having actual empirical proof for things. So learning history as well as I can is kind of required.