thesometimesaint Posted August 23, 2016 Posted August 23, 2016 1 minute ago, TheSkepticChristian said: not really. Perhaps some generations ago, but that is no longer true. I guess it also depends on the High School. Trust me, there are plenty of High Schools out-there that are worth nothing. My Grandsons and Granddaughters are in school. They have plenty of books they are required to read just to pass. True, but not the question. SEE
Kemara Posted August 23, 2016 Posted August 23, 2016 23 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: the Cold War is over. The space program is not. Interest in science progression among non-scientists is very high, perhaps the highest it has ever been probably due to the personal nature of some of the science progression...climate change, renewables, alternatives, organics, envrionment, ecology etc. It seems you are not aware of the groundswell of public interest in these very important issues, it might be time for you to catch up to the rest of the world. On 23/08/2016 at 8:24 AM, TheSkepticChristian said: Not knowing basic science = Not interested in Science. Why, becuase you say so? Please explain why not knowing basic science precludes a person from being interested in science or science progression. Did the 125 million people who tuned in to watch the moon landing have a basic level of science knowledge? If not, then why were they interested in science progression? Did the 311,000 people who took part in the People's Climate March in 2014 have a basic level of science knowledge? If not, then why the interest in this scientific issue? Interestingly theists, among other organisations, specifically endorsed this event: "...the march was called in May 2014 by 350.org, the environmental organization founded by writer/activist Bill McKibben,[2] and it was endorsed by "over 1,500 organizations, including many international and national unions, churches, schools and community and environmental justice organizations." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Climate_March I could go on and on providing examples of the general populace demonstrating interest in science and science progression and as you have so aptly pointed out, the general populace is made up of a majority of theists. You have nothing to back up your claim except "it is becuase I say it is". On 23/08/2016 at 8:24 AM, TheSkepticChristian said: It's the same thing! A hobby is something that you are very interested in One of your sacred holy books, the Oxford Dictionary, disagrees with you. Hobby noun (plural hobbies) 1An activity done regularly in one’s leisure time for pleasure: Interest mass noun] The feeling of wanting to know or learn about something or someone: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/ Notice the stark difference between the two definitions or do you need me to point it out for you? I also find it interesting that your holy book states that a hobby is an activity that is done and interest is a feeling of wanting. While it may be true that a hobby is something that you are very interested in (i thought we were just talking about "interest" now you are talking about "very interested". Interest and very interested are not the same thing you know) it is not true that what you are intersted in is necessarily a hobby. So, wrong again Skeptic. Now, can you please address the questions you avoided in my previous post.
Kemara Posted August 23, 2016 Posted August 23, 2016 On 22/08/2016 at 10:59 PM, TheSkepticChristian said: 2. Most high school students don't read their books. From the National Centre for Education Statistics: "Question: What are the recent trends in advanced mathematics and science coursetaking among U.S. high school students? Response: The percentages of high school graduates who had completed mathematics courses in algebra I, geometry, algebra II/trigonometry, analysis/precalculus, statistics/probability, and calculus increased between 1990 and 2009. For example, the percentage of graduates who had completed calculus increased from 7 percent to 16 percent between 1990 and 2009. Similarly, the percentage of graduates who had completed algebra II/trigonometry increased from 54 percent to 76 percent. The percentages of high school graduates who had taken science courses in chemistry and physics also increased between 1990 and 2009. The percentage of graduates who had taken chemistry increased from 49 to 70 percent, and the percentage of graduates who had completed physics courses increased from 21 to 36 percent. The percentage of graduates who earned at least one credit in biology, chemistry, and physics increased from 19 percent in 1990 to 30 percent in 2009." https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=97 Surely not even you are saying that the increase in graduates in advanced Math and science between 1990 and 2009 occurred even though the students did not read their books...or are you?
TheSkepticChristian Posted August 24, 2016 Posted August 24, 2016 8 hours ago, Kemara said: Did the 125 million people who tuned in to watch the moon landing have a basic level of science knowledge? LOL our debate about the word "interest" is kind of ridiculous, it is just a waste of time. 8 hours ago, Kemara said: Did the 311,000 people who took part in the People's Climate March in 2014 have a basic level of science knowledge? If not, then why the interest in this scientific issue? . That was in New York City, so that 300k is kind of low for NYC. 8 hours ago, Kemara said: For example, the percentage of graduates who had completed calculus increased from 7 percent to 16 percent between 1990 and 2009. I am not talking about students taking AP courses! and 16 percent is kind of low. Most high school students don't take AP courses in Science. 8 hours ago, Kemara said: The percentage of graduates who had taken chemistry increased from 49 to 70 percent AP Chemistry? or just basic high school chemistry? High schools require chemistry! 8 hours ago, Kemara said: Surely not even you are saying that the increase in graduates in advanced Math and science between 1990 and 2009 occurred even though the students did not read their books...or are you? LOL Algebra 1 and Geometry are not advance Math! Most students use their books if it is required for the assignments, but they skim-read to find the answer. Most students don't read entire chapters of a textbook.
TheSkepticChristian Posted August 24, 2016 Posted August 24, 2016 14 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: My Grandsons and Granddaughters are in school. They have plenty of books they are required to read just to pass. again, I guess it depends on the High School. Not everyone lives in rich areas.
Kemara Posted August 24, 2016 Posted August 24, 2016 20 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: LOL our debate about the word "interest" is kind of ridiculous, it is just a waste of time. If you say so, but that makes me question why you bought it up in the first place and why you tried over and over to defend your definition of the word even after admitting that the word was ambiguous. Has it suddenly become a waste of time because the holy book of oxford has shown your dogmatic position to be incorrect...funny how that happened. I will take this response as an admission that you are wrong. 20 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: That was in New York City, so that 300k is kind of low for NYC. That is beside the point and doesnt address the issue. The relevant question is did the 311,000 who took part in the march have a basic understanding of science and if they didnt how is it that they clearly demonstarted an interest in a science issue? Please answer the question and stop with the logical fallacies in a vein attempt at not having to admit that you are wrong. 20 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: I am not talking about students taking AP courses! and 16 percent is kind of low. Most high school students don't take AP courses in Science. I agree that you did not talk about students taking AP courses, that is because you never said anything about the type of courses you simply said that high school students do not read their books. Now that you have been refuted yet again you are attempting to shift the goal posts. Sorry, wont work. So let me ask you again, do high school students read their text books, yes or no? If no then how is it that the percentage of graduates from high school science and advance math have been increasing since 1990? How is that possible if they dont read their books? 20 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: AP Chemistry? or just basic high school chemistry? High schools require chemistry! Read the link I provided for yourself. What does your response have to do with anything we are discussing. Do high school students read their books, yes or no? If no, then how is that the percentage of graduates from high school science and advanced math have been increasing since 1990? How is that possible if they dont read their books? No more strawmen please. 20 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: LOL Algebra 1 and Geometry are not advance Math! First, please send an email to the National Centre for Education Statistics and tell them they have thier facts wrong, tell them that they are wrong because Skeptic said they are wrong. Second, what has your response got to do with high school students reading their books? 20 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Most students use their books if it is required for the assignments, but they skim-read to find the answer. This is a formal Call for Refrences (CFR). Please provide the reference or provide a retraction that 1. MOST students use their books if it is required for an assignment, and 2. MOST students skim-read to find the answer. 20 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Most students don't read entire chapters of a textbook. Good grief Skeptic you just refuted your own arguement. Well done! Your position is that high school students dont read their text books, but you have now admitted that they do in fact read their books just not the entire book. So what if they are not reading the entire chapter, they are still reading. That is what you are admitting isnt it? You are aditting they are reading the books, just not the entire chapter? How many of your own arguments have you refuted now? Finally on this point, this is a formal Call for Refrences (CFR). Please provide the reference or provide a retraction. Keeping entirely within your typical modus operandi you have refused to answer a number of questions and address the actual issue that we are discussing. In case you missed them, these are some of the questions I asked you and some of the issues I rasied that you refused to answer/address. Please answer the qeustions and respond to the issues: 1. Why exactly is TV not enough to demonstrate interest? What logical reason could there possibly be to preclude TV? Are you the sole authority for setting the only acceptable parameters of what is enough? If not you then who or what is this all powerful authority on what is enough. 2. In your view what is the minimum number of acts of interest that are required before they qualify as sufficiently interested and why should this parameter be accepted as the requirement and not some other parameter? 3. The space program is not. Interest in science progression among non-scientists is very high, perhaps the highest it has ever been, probably due to the personal nature of some of the science progression...climate change, renewables, alternatives, organics, envrionment, ecology etc. It seems you are not aware of the groundswell of public interest in these very important issues, it might be time for you to catch up to the rest of the world. 4. Why? Becuase you say so? Please explain why not knowing basic science precludes a person from being interested in science or science progression. 5. Did the 125 million people who tuned in to watch the moon landing have a basic level of science knowledge? If not, then why were they interested in science progression? Did the 311,000 people who took part in the People's Climate March in 2014 have a basic level of science knowledge? If not, then why the interest in this scientific issue? 6. I could go on and on providing examples of the general populace demonstrating interest in science and science progression and as you have so aptly pointed out, the general populace is made up of a majority of theists. You have nothing to back up your claim except "it is becuase I say it is". 7. Notice the stark difference between the two definitions or do you need me to point it out for you? I also find it interesting that your holy book states that a hobby is an activity that is done and interest is a feeling of wanting. While it may be true that a hobby is something that you are very interested in...it is not true that what you are intersted in is necessarily a hobby. So, wrong again Skeptic. 8. Surely not even you are saying that the increase in graduates in advanced Math and science between 1990 and 2009 occurred even though the students did not read their books...or are you? Your well reasoned and logical responses, that are in context and address the actual point of discussion, would be appreciated.
bcuzbcuz Posted August 24, 2016 Author Posted August 24, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, Kemara said: If you say so, but.....blah, blahm blah This is a formal Call for Refrences (CFR). Your well reasoned and logical responses, that are in context and address the actual point of discussion, would be appreciated. I'm extremely tired of your and The Skeptic Christian's pissing contest. It's time to put some actual statistics instead of both your continuous "It is, It ain't" bickering. This from the PISA results from 2012: Perdormance of US 15 year old students in Mathematics, Science and Reading. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED544504.pdf or: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results.htm Under the section for Figures and Tables, page 22-27 of 52 pages Mathematic literacy: average scores. China 613 USA 481...(the OECD average 494) Science literacy: Average scores. China 580 USA 497...(the OECD average 501) Reading literacy Average scores. China 570 USA 498...(the OECD average 496) The PISA scores among the 40 OECD countries: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-26249042 REading: Reading top 40: The USA comes 24th of 40 1. Shanghai (China) 2. Hong Kong (China) 3. Singapore 4. Japan 5. South Korea 6. Finland 7. Ireland 8. Taiwan 9. Canada 10. Poland 11. Estonia 12. Liechtenstein 13. New Zealand 14. Australia 15. Netherlands 16. Belgium 17. Switzerland 18. Macao (China) 19. Vietnam 20. Germany 21. France 22. Norway 23. United Kingdom 24. United States 25. Denmark 26. Czech Republic 27. Italy 28. Austria 29. Latvia 30. Hungary 31. Spain 32. Luxembourg 33. Portugal 34. Israel 35. Croatia 36. Sweden 37. Iceland 38. Slovenia 39. Lithuania 40. Greece Maths top 40: The USA placed 36 out of 40 1. Shanghai (China) 2. Singapore 3. Hong Kong (China) 4. Taiwan 5. South Korea 6. Macao (China) 7. Japan 8. Liechtenstein 9. Switzerland 10. Netherlands 11. Estonia 12. Finland 13. Canada 14. Poland 15. Belgium 16. Germany 17. Vietnam 18. Austria 19. Australia 20. Ireland 21. Slovenia 22. Denmark 23. New Zealand 24. Czech Republic 25. France 26. United Kingdom 27. Iceland 28 Latvia 29. Luxembourg 30. Norway 31. Portugal 32. Italy 33. Spain 34. Russian Federation 35. Slovak Republic 36. United States 37. Lithuania 38. Sweden 39. Hungary 40. Croatia Edited August 24, 2016 by bcuzbcuz
TheSkepticChristian Posted August 24, 2016 Posted August 24, 2016 (edited) 7 hours ago, Kemara said: I agree that you did not talk about students taking AP courses, that is because you never said anything about the type of courses you simply said that high school students do not read their books. . we are speaking in two different languages! and it is clear you like to play games. It seems I have to be very specific (and a lot of details) with you. 7 hours ago, Kemara said: 5. Did the 125 million people who tuned in to watch the moon landing have a basic level of science knowledge? If not, then why were they interested in science progression? Did the 311,000 people who took part in the People's Climate March in 2014 have a basic level of science knowledge? If not, then why the interest in this scientific issue? 1. I bet they were more interested in defeating the soviet union on the moon race. 2. 300k for NYC is kind of low. Do most Americans contribute to independent space programs? No, that means there is a lack of interest. 7 hours ago, Kemara said: I agree that you did not talk about students taking AP courses, that is because you never said anything about the type of courses you simply said that high school students do not read their books. Now that you have been refuted yet again you are attempting to shift the goal posts. I didn't shift anything! AP students don't represent most High school students! You are the one shifting the goal posts. 7 hours ago, Kemara said: Good grief Skeptic you just refuted your own arguement. Well done! Your position is that high school students dont read their text books, but you have now admitted that they do in fact read their books just not the entire book. skim-reading is NOT reading a book! I didn't say high school students never read a single science book, but they mostly don't! Please stop wasting our time playing games 7 hours ago, Kemara said: Call for Refrences (CFR). You bother too much! I was in high school not long ago, I know what I am talking about! You think high school students with low reading levels actually read their textbooks? or science books? Elementary books don't count! ". In 2015, the average reading score for 12th-grade students (287) was not measurably different from the score in 2013, but it was 5 points lower than in 1992 (292)." http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cnb.asp "SAT reading scores fall to record low" http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sat-reading-scores-fall-to-record-low/ "According to research by Ho and others, just under 40 percent of students score at college and career ready levels on NAEP. "College and career ready" means these scores strongly predict that students will be able to succeed doing college-level academics, or with on-the-job training in a position requiring only a high school diploma. That seems clear enough. Except when you realize a couple of things.One is that in 2015 the nationwide high school graduation rate was 82 percent, not 40 percent. That leaves a potentially large group of kids who got diplomas but who weren't ready to succeed in college." http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/04/27/475628214/most-high-school-seniors-arent-college-or-career-ready-says-nations-report-card Edited August 24, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
thesometimesaint Posted August 24, 2016 Posted August 24, 2016 9 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: again, I guess it depends on the High School. Not everyone lives in rich areas. I'm not rich, neither are my children, nor Grandchildren. We all are comfortably middle class. While my kids were little we went every week to the public library. For a small fee($3 at the time) for a library card you can read all the books you want.
Kemara Posted August 24, 2016 Posted August 24, 2016 On 24/08/2016 at 5:40 AM, bcuzbcuz said: I'm extremely tired of your and The Skeptic Christian's pissing contest. It's time to put some actual statistics instead of both your continuous "It is, It ain't" bickering. And what exactly do any of the statistics you provided have to do with whether or not American high school students read their text books? You must have missed the statistics that I provided from the National Centre for Education Statistics. Day late and a dollar short bcuz. If you feel inclined to jump into the discussion please keep up with the context of the discussion and what has in fact been provided in the form of stats.
Kemara Posted August 24, 2016 Posted August 24, 2016 (edited) On 24/08/2016 at 8:25 AM, TheSkepticChristian said: we are speaking in two different languages! and it is clear you like to play games. It seems I have to be very specific (and a lot of details) with you. We are speaking a different language, your is imaginary while mine is what was actually written. You never ever not once said, implied or inferred any type or level of course. Your claim was that high school students didnt read their text books so stop pretending otherwise. The only game I am playing is keeping you honest, which is a game you dislike intensely. On 24/08/2016 at 8:25 AM, TheSkepticChristian said: I bet they were more interested in defeating the soviet union on the moon race. I doubt very much 125 million people watched the moon landing and then exalted "Yay we beat the soviets!" In any case, you have again just refuted your own argument by admitting they were "interested". Whether or not they were interested in beating the Soviets or not they were stil interested in the science progression that led to America beating the Soviets. How many of your own arguements have you refuted now? On 24/08/2016 at 8:25 AM, TheSkepticChristian said: 300k for NYC is kind of low. Again, what has this got to do with this groups interest in a scientific issue? This is what you always do when your arguements start to fall apart before your eyes, you avoid, you obfuscate, you refuse. Please answer the question or simply admit that you are wrong. On 24/08/2016 at 8:25 AM, TheSkepticChristian said: Do most Americans contribute to independent space programs? No, that means there is a lack of interest. Why? Becuase you say so? Why does a person have to contribute financially in order to demonstrate inerest? What logical reason could there possibly be to base interest on financial contribution? Are you the sole authority for setting the only acceptable parameters of what interest is? If not you then who or what is this all powerful authority on what is enough. Please refer again to the definition of the word "interest" I provided from your holy book of Oxford. How does your requirement for financial contribution fit that defintion? On 24/08/2016 at 8:25 AM, TheSkepticChristian said: I didn't shift anything! AP students don't represent most High school students! You are the one shifting the goal posts. I know you are not one to read even your own source materials before quoting them, let alone reading source materials that are provided by someone else, but I think it would be helpful for you to read the link I provided so you can clearly see that the stats refer to high school students. Please stop shifting the goal posts. On 24/08/2016 at 8:25 AM, TheSkepticChristian said: skim-reading is NOT reading a book! Skim "reading" is not reading? How does a person skim "read" without reading? Let me refer you once again to your holy book of Oxford: "Skim 3 [with object] Read (something) quickly so as to note only the important points: he skimmed the report [no object]: she skimmed through the newspaper" http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/skim?q=skim Please note that the definition clearly says "Read (something) quickly..." Read Skeptic, Read. According to one of your saced books skimming is reading Skeptic. Wrong again, how many is that now? On 24/08/2016 at 8:25 AM, TheSkepticChristian said: Please stop wasting our time playing games You mean the game of me keeping you honest or the game of me using your holy books to prove you wrong? On 24/08/2016 at 8:25 AM, TheSkepticChristian said: You bother too much! I was in high school not long ago, I know what I am talking about! You think high school students with low reading levels actually read their textbooks? or science books? Clearly you do not know what you are talking about because the data I provided from the National Centre for Education Statistics disagrees with you. Please read the statistics I provided again, follow the link and have a good read. If high school students are not reading their text books then please explain how it is that the graduation percentages for high school advanced math and science students has been increasing since 1990. On 24/08/2016 at 8:25 AM, TheSkepticChristian said: Elementary books don't count! Your claim was that high school students did not read their text books, you made no reference to the level of book, so unfortunately for you Skeptic, they do count in the context of your claim unless of course you are shifting the goal posts again. Your argument is refuted. On 24/08/2016 at 8:25 AM, TheSkepticChristian said: ". In 2015, the average reading score for 12th-grade students (287) was not measurably different from the score in 2013, but it was 5 points lower than in 1992 (292)." http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cnb.asp "SAT reading scores fall to record low" http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sat-reading-scores-fall-to-record-low/ "According to research by Ho and others, just under 40 percent of students score at college and career ready levels on NAEP. "College and career ready" means these scores strongly predict that students will be able to succeed doing college-level academics, or with on-the-job training in a position requiring only a high school diploma. That seems clear enough. Except when you realize a couple of things.One is that in 2015 the nationwide high school graduation rate was 82 percent, not 40 percent. That leaves a potentially large group of kids who got diplomas but who weren't ready to succeed in college." http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/04/27/475628214/most-high-school-seniors-arent-college-or-career-ready-says-nations-report-card None of these statistics answer any of my CFR's. Let me restate so you are clear about what you are supposed to be providing references for: 1. MOST students use their books if it is required for an assignment 2. MOST students skim-read to find the answer. 3. Most students don't read entire chapters of a textbook. Please answer the rest of the questions and issues I raised and remember I asked for your well reasoned and logical responses, that are in context and address the actual point of discussion. I certainly did not ask for the nonsense you just provided. On 24/08/2016 at 8:25 AM, TheSkepticChristian said: I didn't say high school students never read a single science book, but they mostly don't! Actually what you really said was, and I quote, "Most high school students don't read their books." Ok then, please explain the data from the National Centre for Education Statistics and then please explain how if a high school student does, as you state, read a single science book, why this doesnt represent interest? Or is there a minimum number of books that must be read in order to qualify for the ambiguous title of "interested"? Edited August 24, 2016 by Kemara
bcuzbcuz Posted August 24, 2016 Author Posted August 24, 2016 This from the PISA results from 2012: Perdormance of US 15 year old students in Mathematics, Science and Reading. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED544504.pdf or: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results.htm Under the section for Figures and Tables, page 22-27 of 52 pages Mathematic literacy: average scores. China 613 USA 481...(the OECD average 494) Science literacy: Average scores. China 580 USA 497...(the OECD average 501) Reading literacy Average scores. China 570 USA 498...(the OECD average 496) The PISA scores among the 40 OECD countries: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-26249042 REading: Reading top 40: The USA comes 24th of 40 1. Shanghai (China) 2. Hong Kong (China) 3. Singapore 4. Japan 6. Finland 9. Canada 24. United States Maths top 40: The USA placed 36 out of 40 1. Shanghai (China) 2. Singapore 3. Hong Kong (China) 4. 5. 6. 7. Japan 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Finland 13. Canada 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. United States You reference to stats 1990-2009 My stats come from 2012, published in 2013. And yet you think I'm a "day late and a dollar short". Your simile is slipping. For example, the percentage of graduates who had completed calculus increased from 7 percent to 16 percent between 1990 and 2009. Similarly, the percentage of graduates who had completed algebra II/trigonometry increased from 54 percent to 76 percent. The percentages of high school graduates who had taken science courses in chemistry and physics also increased between 1990 and 2009. The percentage of graduates who had taken chemistry increased from 49 to 70 percent, and the percentage of graduates who had completed physics courses increased from 21 to 36 percent. The percentage of graduates who earned at least one credit in biology, chemistry, and physics increased from 19 percent in 1990 to 30 percent in 2009." https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=97 The studies in Finland have shown that the studies of maths alone is not sufficient. They link the calculus and algebra to physics courses. In other words, applying the maths used. But the bottomline of my stats are that poor skills in math, reading and sciences at the age of 15 in the USA, don't suddenly improve when those students reach university. If you have stats that prove otherwise, I'm more than happy to look at them.
Kemara Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 19 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said: You reference to stats 1990-2009 My stats come from 2012, published in 2013. And yet you think I'm a "day late and a dollar short". Your simile is slipping. Good grief...if I could communicate with you audibly I would speak slowly so you could have a better chance of undestanding some very simple concepts, but I will try my best with writing: 1. Please explain to me how the statistics you have provided show whether or not most American high school students read their school text books or not. That is the context of the discussion between myself and Skeptic, got it?. This is the second time I have explained the context of the discussion to you, hopefully a third will not be neeeded. 2. My reference to you being a day late and dollar short was directed at this following comment: On 24/08/2016 at 5:40 AM, bcuzbcuz said: It's time to put some actual statistics instead of both your continuous "It is, It ain't" bickering. Did I or did I not provide some "actual statistics" before you made this statement"? Yes or no? If I did then you are a day late and dollar short stating that "its time to put some actual statistics...". The date of your statistics, even if they were relevant to the discussion, is meaningless. You didnt read the thread properly before you decided to jump in did you bcuz, please try to keep up from now on. 19 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said: The studies in Finland have shown that the studies of maths alone is not sufficient. They link the calculus and algebra to physics courses. In other words, applying the maths used. Ok, great, wonderful, awesome. Now please explain how this has anything to do with whether or not American high school students read their textbooks or not. 19 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said: But the bottomline of my stats are that poor skills in math, reading and sciences at the age of 15 in the USA, don't suddenly improve when those students reach university. Ok, great, wonderful, awesome. Now please explain how this has anything to do with whether or not American high school students read their textbooks or not. 19 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said: If you have stats that prove otherwise, I'm more than happy to look at them. "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Two days, two dollars.
TheSkepticChristian Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 5 hours ago, Kemara said: I doubt very much 125 million people watched the moon landing and then exalted "Yay we beat the soviets!" In any case, you have again just refuted your own argument by admitting they were "interested". Look! watching TV is not real "interest" Let's talk about football, someone that doesn't know the basic rules of the game means he is not interested in football, even if he watched it once on TV. 5 hours ago, Kemara said: Again, what has this got to do with this groups interest in a scientific issue? This is what you always do when your arguements start to fall apart before your eyes, you avoid, you obfuscate, you refuse. Please answer the question or simply admit that you are wrong I am never wrong. 300k doesn't represent most American, not even most NYC residents (9 Million) 5 hours ago, Kemara said: Why? Becuase you say so? Why does a person have to contribute financially in order to demonstrate inerest? or reading a science book! Listen, I am done with you, you have no interest in understading my point of view, and you are free to ignore the data I presented. 4 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said: This from the PISA results from 2012: Perdormance of US 15 year old students in Mathematics, Science and Reading. Kemara is not interested in the data.
Kemara Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 31 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Look! watching TV is not real "interest" Let's talk about football, someone that doesn't know the basic rules of the game means he is not interested in football, even if he watched it once on TV. You keep on saying that, over and over again, yet you fail to give any logical reason why this is the case. Your requirement doesn't fit within the definition of your holy book of Oxford, are you apostatizing from its authority because it doesn't agree with you? Please answer the following question which I now pose to you for the third time: Why exactly is TV not enough to demonstrate interest? What logical reason could there possibly be to preclude TV? Are you the sole authority for setting the only acceptable parameters of what is enough? If not you then who or what is this all powerful authority on what is enough. 35 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: I am never wrong. Maybe in the fantasy world that you live in, but back here on planet earth you have been proven wrong over and over again...in fact you have proven yourself wrong. 36 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: 300k doesn't represent most American, not even most NYC residents (9 Million) For the third time, just answer the question and answer it in context. I know why you wont, its because it shows how very wrong you are...wrong in your world and in the real world. 37 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Kemara is not interested in the data. I'll ask you what I asked bcuz. How is this data relevant to the question of whether or not American high school students read their text books or not? You still haven't addressed all the issues I raised or answered all the questions, get to it.
TheSkepticChristian Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 (edited) 43 minutes ago, Kemara said: Maybe in the fantasy world that you live in, but back here on planet earth you have been proven wrong over and over again...in fact you have proven yourself wrong. if anyone is closely reading our conversation (I doubt it), he or she will know I won the debate. All you have are games. 43 minutes ago, Kemara said: You still haven't addressed all the issues I raised or answered all the questions, get to it. Nah! I don't have time for this bull I already presented useful data Edited August 25, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
Kemara Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said: if anyone is closely reading our conversation (I doubt it), he or she will know I won the debate. You cant have been paying much attention, I'm not the only one who demonstrated that you are wrong. The only people who would think you won would be people who believe "it is because I say it is" wins over statistics, Oxford dictionary, logic, reason and referenced examples of real world events. Maybe that is how they roll on your planet but not so much here on planet earth. 2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: All you have are games. Keeping you honest, on topic and in context is a fun game....but not very challenging. 2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Nah! I don't have time for this bull You never do when your arguments are refuted and soundly refuted they were. 2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: I already presented useful data No and I'm not the only one who said so. You gave none 'cause you got none. Have a happy day! : )
TheSkepticChristian Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Kemara said: You cant have been paying much attention, I'm not the only one who demonstrated that you are wrong. For the love of Brahma, you didn't demonstrate anything! I am still right that Theists are not very interested in science. Just because you point to Television doesn't mean anything. Go to a job interview and ask the employer what he means by "interested" in the job. He doesn't mean some mediocre job performance. 19 minutes ago, Kemara said: Oxford dictionary, logic, reason I always agree with the Oxford dictionary, but the definition is ambiguous. Interest "The feeling of wanting to know or learn about something or someone:" To me "wanting to know" is much more profound, to me it means putting some effort. 19 minutes ago, Kemara said: You never do when your arguments are refuted and soundly refuted they were. LOL you didn't refute anything! You simply keep pointing at irrelevancies. Why not show me real data that 1. Proves most Theists are in fact interested in Science 2. Proves most high school students do in fact read their textbooks. Really reading it! not just reading the Title or subtitles. Edited August 25, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
Kemara Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: For the love of Brahma, you didn't demonstrate anything! I I demonstrated that your data did not say what you claimed it said. You could not provide a single reason why your leap of logic from what the data actually said to what you wanted it to say. You couldn't because there was no logic whatsoever to it and you must have known this which I suspect is the reason why you didn't even try to explain it beyond "it is because I say it is". I demonstrated that your argument was entirely illogical by using statistics, Oxford dictionary, logic, reason and referenced examples of real world events. 3 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: I am still right that Theists are not very interested in science. No you are not,as I clearly demonstrated using statistics, Oxford dictionary, logic, reason and referenced examples of real world events. And how on earth can you be "still right" when you were never able to defend your position in the first place? 3 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Just because you point to Television doesn't mean anything. Of course it does, it means those people were interested enough in science to turn on their TV's. "Interested" being the key word here. Instead of just repeating "it is because I say it is!!!!" defend your position with strong reasoning and sound logic. Perhaps you can start by answering the following question which I present to you the fourth time: Why exactly is TV not enough to demonstrate interest? What logical reason could there possibly be to preclude TV? Are you the sole authority for setting the only acceptable parameters of what is enough? If not you then who or what is this all powerful authority on what is enough. 3 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Go to a job interview and ask the employer what he means by "interested" in the job. He doesn't mean some mediocre job performance. I always agree with the Oxford dictionary, but the definition is ambiguous. Interest "The feeling of wanting to know or learn about something or someone:" To me "wanting to know" is much more profound, to me it means putting some effort. Ok so do you or don't you agree with the holy book? It seems to me that you have rejected the holy books definition and imposed your own definition. Your words "To me "wanting to know" is much more profound...." , so obviously the holy book is wrong and your definition is correct. Why is your definition correct..."it is because I say it is". Your authority is greater even than that of the holy book of Oxford. Of course there is a much simpler point to make, which is....your opinion of what the word means is completely irrelevant. Why should your second rate joke of an opinion take precedence over the Oxford Dictionary? 3 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: LOL you didn't refute anything! Maybe not on your planet but here on planet earth I completely dismantled your "it is because I say it is" argument and did so using statistics, Oxford dictionary, logic, reason and referenced examples of real world events. 3 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Why not show me real data that I did and you couldn't handle it. I asked you repeatedly to address the data, you refused over and over again. You couldn't deal with it so you ignored it, ran for the hills covered your ears and eyes and repeatedly shouted "it is because I say it is". 3 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: 1. Proves most Theists are in fact interested in Science 2. Proves most high school students do in fact read their textbooks. Really reading it! not just reading the Title or subtitles. Pull the other one, it wasn't me who was making claims, you were the one who was making claims, as such the burden of proof falls to you, a burden which you have failed miserably in meeting. I mean heck "it is because I say it is" isn't a defence at all. I questioned your position, challenged its legitimacy and logic, offered alternative view points and did so using statistics, Oxford dictionary, logic, reason and referenced examples of real world events. Now go deal with them and please confine yourself to this planet. Edited August 25, 2016 by Kemara
TheSkepticChristian Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, Kemara said: Of course it does, it means those people were interested enough in science to turn on their TV's. No, being truly interested in Science means you dedicate some time to study it! or at least make contributions to independent scientific research. When you go to a job interview ask the employer what it means to be "interested" in working in the company. Edited August 25, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
thesometimesaint Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 41 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: No, being truly interested in Science means you dedicate some time to study it! or at least make contributions to independent scientific research. When you go to a job interview ask the employer what it means to be "interested" in working in the company. No it does not. That is a "No True Scotsman Fallacy". What that means is that you want a job to pay the bills.
Sleeper Cell Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 11 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: if anyone is closely reading our conversation (I doubt it), he or she will know I won the debate. CFR
bcuzbcuz Posted August 25, 2016 Author Posted August 25, 2016 13 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Look! watching TV is not real "interest" Let's talk about football, someone that doesn't know the basic rules of the game means he is not interested in football, even if he watched it once on TV. I am never wrong. 300k doesn't represent most American, not even most NYC residents (9 Million) or reading a science book! Listen, I am done with you, you have no interest in understading my point of view, and you are free to ignore the data I presented. Kemara is not interested in the data. I agree with your concluding statement.
Calm Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 SC, in one of your posts, you give the stat that almost 40% of high school kids are college ready. This would of necessity include taking some science classes. Are you suggesting these college prepared kids did not read their textbooks in depth and yet were able to pass the college readiness standard (most likely SAT or ACT)? According to wiki's report of two well respected reports, 7% of Americans are atheists or agnostics, up a percentage point or two from 20 years ago. Assuming (and this is not a good assumption but given the lack of 18 below data, decent enough) that number applies to high school kids, even if we posit that all atheists or agnostics were college ready (which is highly unlikely) that still leaves around 32% of high school kids being believers and college ready according to your data. How do you think they got there by not reading textbooks? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_the_United_States
bcuzbcuz Posted August 25, 2016 Author Posted August 25, 2016 16 hours ago, Kemara said: Good grief...if I could communicate with you audibly I would speak slowly so you could have a better chance of undestanding some very simple concepts, but I will try my best with writing: 1. Please explain to me how the statistics you have provided show whether or not most American high school students read their school text books or not. That is the context of the discussion between myself and Skeptic, got it?. This is the second time I have explained the context of the discussion to you, hopefully a third will not be neeeded. 2. My reference to you being a day late and dollar short was directed at this following comment: Did I or did I not provide some "actual statistics" before you made this statement"? Yes or no? If I did then you are a day late and dollar short stating that "its time to put some actual statistics...". The date of your statistics, even if they were relevant to the discussion, is meaningless. You didnt read the thread properly before you decided to jump in did you bcuz, please try to keep up from now on. Ok, great, wonderful, awesome. Now please explain how this has anything to do with whether or not American high school students read their textbooks or not. Ok, great, wonderful, awesome. Now please explain how this has anything to do with whether or not American high school students read their textbooks or not. "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Two days, two dollars. I'll say this slowly. The USA school system does not produce an educational product that is above the average, in fact, as my data shows the US falls squarely in the lower half of the OECD countries. In Maths, the US comes 36th out of 40 (or 36th out of 70, if you want to include non OECD countries) THe PISA scores also showed that to the question whether students are happy with their education, the US falls below the average. So students perform poorly and they seem aware of the fact. The US ranked 32nd and well below the average, in sciences. I'm assuming my need to repeat these stats are that you are a product of the US system.
Recommended Posts