Isn't phrenology the study of the feel and size of Walt's asshole?

wow.
Just wow.

Sorry, they feel and interpret the size of Walt's asshole

What's wrong with teaching that? It's cute how the scientific community fears these things.

Oy vey...

Excellent, I love anything that marches science backwards in this country. The future opf America deserves to inherit what we are working on right now.

OregonVet: What's wrong with teaching that? It's cute how the scientific community fears these things.

Fears these things? No, just disgusted it's being considered for part of the curriculum. What's wrong with it? What's wrong with teaching, in science class, that the earth is flat and we're riding through the universe on the back of a turtle? Well, it's not science, for one.

"Science has always excluded supernatural phenomenon."

This should be inherently obvious by definition, but for some reason, some people just don't get it.

Ah, Buttville. I used to know someone from there. This doesn't surprise me at all.

Ya got to wonder about the foresight of the person who named the place "Butteville".

kaminariko: "Science has always excluded supernatural phenomenon."

This should be inherently obvious by definition, but for some reason, some people just don't get it.

Some people don't understand that the word "supernatural" is a paradox and makes no sense, so of course science isn't amenable to it. Neither is, you know, reality.

OregonVet: What's wrong with teaching that? It's cute how the scientific community fears these things.

I'd like the schools to teach science in science class.

ExJerseyGirl: OregonVet: What's wrong with teaching that? It's cute how the scientific community fears these things.

I'd like the schools to teach science in science class.

I'd like them to teach things that will make it more entertaining when people like OregonVet are in the hospital in need of a real doctor. That'll really be cute.

Sounds to me like someone on the school board is an AW.

I wouldn't mind learning Alchemy.

FTA: "Science has always excluded supernatural phenomenon."
kaminariko: This should be inherently obvious by definition, but for some reason, some people just don't get it.

(raises hand)

"How do you distinguish 'supernatural' from 'natural'?"

What's wrong with teaching that?

Because they're provably, indisputably nonsense. That's what.

There's an enormous difference between "open minded" and "empty headed." Belief in intelligent design, alchemy, and phrenology is purely the latter.

Teaching ignorance is not how you make your country strong; it's how you cause it to rot from within.

abb3w: "How do you distinguish 'supernatural' from 'natural'?"

You can't. Like I said, the very idea of the supernatural is a paradox.

OregonVet: What's wrong with teaching that? It's cute how the scientific community fears these things.

First is is not science and has no place in a science classroom.

"We [other leaders of the ID movement and myself] thought that the concept of Intelligent Design needed further development before it would be ready to be presented in science classes as a theory, in competition with the reigning Darwinian theory."
-Phillip E Johnson, 2006, in response to the Dover decision

Second I do not want anybody besides myself deciding my childs religous education.

ExJerseyGirl: OregonVet: What's wrong with teaching that? It's cute how the scientific community fears these things.

I'd like the schools to teach science in science class.

That's I had it: science in science classes, religion in religion classes. Not a single problem. And we learned about -GASP!- EVOLUTION in a Catholic school! So someone should show the fundies that teaching evolution in religious schools does not make the world end, no matter how hard they wish the world did end.

Phrenology is determing your personality or what you're good at by measuring bumps on your head. I had a friend who liked to laugh about this idea often.

It always made me think, what, I could convince people I'm good at English by just hitting myself on the head?

Still in all seriousness it sorta WAS a step forward, in that the theory did consider the brain to be where conciousnes came from, with different parts of that very physical organ doing different tasks. We've just moved on with that idea very far and know it's not all about size and the skull bulging out.

FTA: "I think this will be a big issue in the Supreme Court before long," said board president Stephen Darger, a practicing attorney and former police officer. "Maybe it will be with this school."

This guy needs to be removed from the school board for pushing his Supreme Court ambitions over a cogent science curriculum.

He's probably fapping at the very idea as I type.

OregonVet: What's wrong with teaching that?

Well, let's start from the beginning. Would you agree that (P OR Q) is logically equivalent to (Q OR P)?

GaryPDX: I wouldn't mind learning Alchemy.

There's a good program at MIT, but the material is a bit outside the grasp of the typical 7^th grader.

DamnYankees: You can't.

Which is why I'm asking: on the off chance someone else can, and is willing to try and educate me. =)

co-conspirator: There's an enormous difference between "open minded" and "empty headed."

As my mom would put it, "don't open your mind so wide your brain falls out."

abb3w: "How do you distinguish 'supernatural' from 'natural'?"

Dammit. There's a kid like you in every class.

/that's why I love teaching.

itazurakko: It always made me think, what, I could convince people I'm good at English by just hitting myself on the head?

That's retrophrenology; altering personality by inducing properly placed lumps.

abb3w: That's retrophrenology; altering personality by inducing properly placed lumps.

The More You Know

*runs to get a hammer

I have yet to hear an argument that defends teaching ID in school that makes any sense and isn't framed in a religious framework. Since we can't have religion taught in a public school, how is this even still a debate?

As long as they want to teach both sides of the "controversy," where are astrology, spontaneous generation and sympathetic magic in the curriculum?

OregonVet: What's wrong with teaching that? It's cute how the scientific community fears these things.

Sunday school is for teaching children about religion. Public school needs to stick to more tangible subjects.

oldebayer: As long as they want to teach both sides of the "controversy," where are astrology, spontaneous generation and sympathetic magic in the curriculum?

You're supposed to be "open minded" enough for one other option, not all of them. Stop pissing Jesus off with that silly nonsense.

GaryPDX: I wouldn't mind learning Alchemy.

Neither would I, actually.

I wasn't using my real science anyway!

Weaver95: GaryPDX: I wouldn't mind learning Alchemy.

Neither would I, actually.

Alchemy still could sort of work in the future. To think that one day we could manipulate atoms to change their properties? Why not?

Actually, I can see teaching ID as an alternative to science, period.

When I was in school (6th, 7th, or maybe 8th grade) we learned the gremlin theory, that all things were made from them and all phenomenon resulted from their actions. We were tasked to prove or disprove, and it became a a lesson in scientific method that I remember very well.

ID would be a great substitute for the Gremlin theory.

kaminariko: Dammit. There's a kid like you in every class.

They don't even come close. You have no idea how many headaches my older sisters caused going through the school system. The eldest first started arguing with Bishops at age five. Betty complains that when she went through the schools two years behind Rose, every single teacher she ever had asked "... are you Rose's sister?" (The "Yes" response provoked variously "Oh" or "Oh dear...", depending on the teacher's caliber.)

When I went through six years later, at least three teachers decided the year I was about to hit their classes would be a good year to start being retired.

Redwing: Isn't phrenology the study of the feel and size of Walt's asshole?

I totally came in here to say that. Who says you can't learn SAT words from Charlie Sheen?

oldebayer: As long as they want to teach both sides of the "controversy," where are astrology, spontaneous generation and sympathetic magic in the curriculum?

sympathetic magic is clunky, thaumaturgy (as relating to blood magic) and straight up necromancy are more direct, even despite their inherent limitations. Technomancy is more applicable in a corporate setting however, as MBA's find it easy to learn to make appropriate sacrifices to appease the machine spirits of their magic email boxes.

DamnYankees: Weaver95: GaryPDX: I wouldn't mind learning Alchemy.

Neither would I, actually.

Alchemy still could sort of work in the future. To think that one day we could manipulate atoms to change their properties? Why not?

I'm thinking of the metallurgy alone would be a most beneficial knowledge.

adamgreeney: I have yet to hear an argument that defends teaching ID in school that makes any sense and isn't framed in a religious framework

Done properly, ID is a good example to show what Science isn't. Suggesting this, however, does not make people who "want it taught" happy.

make me some tea: Sunday school is for teaching children about religion

I teach Sunday School. We spent one Sunday talking about the FSM and ID in schools.

co-conspirator: There's an enormous difference between "open minded" and "empty headed." Belief in intelligent design, alchemy, and phrenology is purely the latter.

Teaching ignorance is not how you make your country strong; it's how you cause it to rot from within.

your troll-fu is strong.

Weaver95: Technomancy is more applicable in a corporate setting however, as MBA's find it easy to learn to make appropriate sacrifices to appease the machine spirits of their magic email boxes.

Remember, a SCSI chain requires three terminations: resistor at near end, resistor at far end, and goat in the middle at midnight with a silver blade.

ExJerseyGirl: make me some tea: Sunday school is for teaching children about religion

I teach Sunday School. We spent one Sunday talking about the FSM and ID in schools.

Why?

jcooli09: ID would be a great substitute for the Gremlin theory.

That's an interesting idea.

GaryPDX: DamnYankees: Weaver95: GaryPDX: I wouldn't mind learning Alchemy.

Neither would I, actually.

Alchemy still could sort of work in the future. To think that one day we could manipulate atoms to change their properties? Why not?

I'm thinking of the metallurgy alone would be a most beneficial knowledge.

sometimes I get the feeling that quantum physics really IS alchemy. it's just changed it's spots and picked up a face lift.

Weaver95: GaryPDX: I wouldn't mind learning Alchemy.

Neither would I, actually.

Isaac Newton could never make it work, either.