Should Schools Teach The Truth?

Author: Mandrakel

Posts

Total: 34
Topic's author
#1
Mandrakel
Mandrakel's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 144
0
2
2
Mandrakel's avatar
Mandrakel
0
2
2
Given that children will regrettably be exposed to biased religion in their lives wouldn't it be fair that their schooling should include lessons in countering such misinformation?

Also, given that research has shown the IQ of theists is lower than that of normal people, wouldn't it be in the best interests of educators to ensure that children receive a balanced education without the limitations to learning that religion imposes?

#2
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Mandrakel
Given that IQ isn't a very descriptive metric for anything, that doesn't tell us much. 
Topic's author
#3
Mandrakel
Mandrakel's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 144
0
2
2
Mandrakel's avatar
Mandrakel
0
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
Given that IQ isn't a very descriptive metric for anything, that doesn't tell us much. 
I agree, however it is still used as a measuring stick and it is significant enough that there have been a number of properly conducted research studies that have arrived at this conclusion.
I think it stands to reason that if kids are going to have information suppressed from them such as biology, they will be lacking in basic knowledge compared with other kids. 

#4
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Mandrakel
I agree with your conclusion, but not your way of getting there - it's like measuring the rate of blonde hair and using it to determine who's good at boxing, doesn't get us anywhere. Now, the fact that theists are more likely to have experienced higher concentrations of dogma and indoctrination? That does suggest there should be more focus in dismissing misinformation in schools.
Topic's author
#5
Mandrakel
Mandrakel's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 144
0
2
2
Mandrakel's avatar
Mandrakel
0
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
Now, the fact that theists are more likely to have experienced higher concentrations of dogma and indoctrination? 
Yep, that certainly would hinder normal development of one's IQ. I would take that further to say that kids who learn too much dogma and indoctrination are going to learn to accept things at face value rather than through considered logic and reasoning.

#6
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Mandrakel
Again - IQ  is not a useful metric, it is based on biased and nonfactual measurements, popularized by racists in the 30s - this is where eugenics was originally based, and the myth has propagated today.
#7
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mandrakel
Given that children will regrettably be exposed to biased religion in their lives wouldn't it be fair that their schooling should include lessons in countering such misinformation?

It would.  But good luck with that.   Muslims still today get upset over a novel and a cartoon.  We have recently had a teacher beheaded and another has had to go into hiding with his family under police protection.
#8
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Religion is either in school or out of school. If your going to actively tell kids they and their families are liars then you should also teach  comparative religion courses where every faith is discussed.  Give all sides or none. 
Topic's author
#9
Mandrakel
Mandrakel's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 144
0
2
2
Mandrakel's avatar
Mandrakel
0
2
2
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
........you should also teach  comparative religion courses where every faith is discussed.  Give all sides or none. 
This is already done in many schools and I suppose that what remains is to keep tabs on how the information is presented and in what context. I would like to see: "Now boys and girls, this morning we are going to learn about religion. Now there is no right or wrong about religion but there are some utter loonies out there who believe......"


#10
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Mandrakel
This is already done in many schools 
LOL
Topic's author
#11
Mandrakel
Mandrakel's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 144
0
2
2
Mandrakel's avatar
Mandrakel
0
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
Again - IQ  is not a useful metric, it is based on biased and nonfactual measurements, popularized by racists in the 30s - this is where eugenics was originally based, and the myth has propagated today.
That is your biased opinion but the fact is that IQ tests are still the most universally used tests to gauge intelligence and there is currently nothing better.
 
#12
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Mandrakel
Um... appeal to populum much? Just because something is widely propagated does not mean that it is "effective" or "useful". Take religion - or theism in general as an example.
Topic's author
#13
Mandrakel
Mandrakel's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 144
0
2
2
Mandrakel's avatar
Mandrakel
0
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
Um... appeal to populum much? Just because something is widely propagated does not mean that it is "effective" or "useful". 
Come on now!
Yes you are right however we are not talking about "something", are we?
We are specifically talking about IQ tests and the fact is that they are the most effective test. Show me a test that is more universally used and is more effective or useful....you can't, can you?
Pretty amateur try there....ad populum indeed.

#14
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Mandrakel
No. IQ tests aren't "effective" - they are the only standard which is widely used - again - you are arguing that because something is "universally used" it is "effective" I do not need to show you something more effective - you must demonstrate that they are effective - the fact that they are widely used is not evidence of their effectiveness - as you seem to think it is. Ad populum
Topic's author
#15
Mandrakel
Mandrakel's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 144
0
2
2
Mandrakel's avatar
Mandrakel
0
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
 the fact that they are widely used is not evidence of their effectiveness 
We have already covered that...no need to reiterate.

I do not have to demonstrate that they are effective since I said (now read carefully) "the fact is that they are the most effective test.
Furthermore, I said, "Show me a test that is more universally used and is more effective or useful.." You of course, failed to do so. One does wonder why, doesn't one?
Not very well on top of things are you?
#16
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Mandrakel
The fact that they are "the most effective" does not actually mean that they are practically effective. For example - the fact that Shawn's Pizzaria is the best-selling pizza in Dallas Mall- Food court, does not mean that it is the "best pizza". The fact that something is considered the "most effective" does not mean it is accurate or even - it seems I initially misunderstood your fallacy - which is actually just an assumption.

You are assuming that because it is the "most effective" test of intelligence (which I would contest) - that is is necessarily "effective" in general. You are the use of a thing in society with its actual use - for example - in the medieval age, feet were the most effective and universally used way to measure distance - that does not mean that feet are actually the most effective way of measuring distance in general. You are making a simple mistake here.

Also pivoting, interestingly enough.
Topic's author
#17
Mandrakel
Mandrakel's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 144
0
2
2
Mandrakel's avatar
Mandrakel
0
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
practically 
That's enough and getting highly ridiculous now....trying to pick and playing with semantics has nothing at all to do with the discussion.

It's quite sad really. I introduced and raised a perfectly legitimate point and the best you can do is pick holes in it instead of actually addressing it?
There is a plethora of authoritative and properly researched reports relating to lower IQs in theists and have we seen a theist submit a post to the effect of, "Gee Mandrakel, that certainly does raise concern in our community and I think we should look into addressing the situation, what ideas do you have?"

No sirree, nothing like that, just the usual diversions and denials which are consistent with the two conditions that commonly go hand-in-hand with religion; ignorance and arrogance.

#18
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Mandrakel
You have not actually responded to my point - simply went on a self-indulgent rant - now defend your premise: Is it true that because something is currently (as asserted by you) the most "effective" measure of something that it is actually effective at doing that thing? Because then you would have to defend that measuring things with your feet is the most effective way of measuring distance? Do you see how the fallacy comes in there? Please actually respond or I'll just ignore you - I don't have time for your little assertions - you don't have my respect as an interlocutor, either keep that way or actually respond intelligently 
#19
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mandrakel
 wouldn't it be fair that their schooling should include lessons in countering such misinformation?

Would you be prepared to stand in front of a class full of Muslim children to  explain that the prophet Muhammad was mentally deficient and had an "IQ  lower than that of normal people"?


I would like to see: "Now boys and girls, this morning we are going to learn about religion. Now there is no right or wrong about religion but there are some utter loonies out there who believe......"

 There are indeed "utter loonies out there who believe...".   So how would you go about telling these Muslim school kids that to have these beliefs is "right or wrong",  if there is - as you say -  " no right or wrong about religion"?  And what will be " the truth"  that you would  wish to teach them about Islam?
Topic's author
#20
Mandrakel
Mandrakel's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 144
0
2
2
Mandrakel's avatar
Mandrakel
0
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
the most effective" does not actually mean that they are practically effective. 
I never made such an assertion nor intended such nor does it have any relevance to the thrust of the topic.
What is relevant and very showing is that you refuse to address the topic and instead resort to side issues and childish, condescending tactics...."Please actually respond or I'll just ignore you"

I suggest you may wish to brush up your act more than just a little bit.


#21
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Mandrakel
You do remember my original contention right? I said  that IQ tests are not a useful metric, and you responded that they are the most universally used and most effective way of the time of "measuring IQ" - yet you haven't even demonstrated that they can measure IQ. You are simply pivoting away from you claim because you can't back it up - again -  the foot (as in your foot) - was the most universersally used and most effective way of measuring distance- that does not mean it was practically efficient, or a useful metric (which the same thing in case you didn't know) - we were arguing about whether or not IQ tests are a useful metric-  and your only argument that they are is that they are used widely - and the "Most effective at test" - again an add populum and an assertion - just because something is widely used and claims to be effective does not mean that it actually is.

Prove that it is indeed a useful metric 
Topic's author
#22
Mandrakel
Mandrakel's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 144
0
2
2
Mandrakel's avatar
Mandrakel
0
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
You do remember my original contention right? I said  that IQ tests are not a useful metric, and you responded that they are the most universally used and most effective way of the time of "measuring IQ" - yet you haven't even demonstrated that they can measure IQ.
That's right and nor do I intend to (demonstrate).
So, many hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent on many research projects by many reputable and qualified specialists (more knowledgeable than you and I no doubt) and you are sitting there trying to insinuate that it is all a load of crap?

I more than suspect you are trying out any diversion or nitpick you can to muddy the topic without the slightest intent of actually addressing it.
For obvious reasons?

For my part I will continue to out theists who are intent on sticking their heads in the sand over legitimate problems with their faith. Yes there is much goodness and much good intent with religion but there is an awful lot wrong with it and the more theists are in denial, the worse they will get. And religious institutions are wondering why members are leaving in droves and are getting more out of touch with society?


#23
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Mandrakel
Again - no rebuttal - just that "millions of dollars have been spent on it"  - yes because people think that they are right - please demonstrate that they were- cause you are just running away - please demonstrate the metric by which IQ tests are useful. 

Because you are simply not very good at coming to logical conclusion. 
Topic's author
#24
Mandrakel
Mandrakel's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 144
0
2
2
Mandrakel's avatar
Mandrakel
0
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
please demonstrate the metric by which IQ tests are useful. 
You can keep asking that question till the cows come home but my answer is still the same....No. But so what?

I can keep asking the OP question for ever and a day but I won't....it is up to your conscience whether or not you decide to answer. But isn't it very telling?


#25
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Mandrakel
In other words - you have no proof that IQ tests are actually useful in measuring anything? Therefore - to use it as some kind of standard is a lie at best.
#26
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mandrakel

Mandrakel wrote:  wouldn't it be fair that their schooling should include lessons in countering such misinformation?

Would you be prepared to stand in front of a class full of Muslim children to  explain that the prophet Muhammad was mentally deficient and had an "IQ  lower than that of normal people"?


Mandrakel wrote:  I would like to see: "Now boys and girls, this morning we are going to learn about religion. Now there is no right or wrong about religion but there are some utter loonies out there who believe......"

 There are indeed "utter loonies out there who believe...".   So how would you go about telling these Muslim school kids that to have these beliefs is "right or wrong",  if there is - as you say -  " no right or wrong about religion"?  And what will be " the truth"  that you would  wish to teach them about Islam?


Mandrakel wrote:  I am not an educationalist...................... I am damned sure that I wouldn't allow religion to be taught in schools



Ok, but it  is taught in schools and probably will be for many years to come,  and  this is why you have started a thread saying ;  " that their schooling should include lessons in countering such misinformation", isn't it?

So, would you be willing to stand in front of a class full of Muslim children to  explain that the prophet Muhammad was mentally deficient and had an "IQ  lower than that of normal people"? And risk having your head removed by one of those people that you also regard as having a low IQ. Yes or No?

 How would you counter for instance the"misinformation" spouted in the Quran? 

Your title asks; Should Schools Teach The Truth"? 
 With  what truth would you counter the belief that the prophet Muhammad believed that God had chosen him as his messenger and so began to preach what God had revealed to him in a vision?


#27
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@Mandrakel
You can't change your IQ. You are either stupid or you aren't. 
Topic's author
#28
Mandrakel
Mandrakel's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 144
0
2
2
Mandrakel's avatar
Mandrakel
0
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
In other words - you have no proof that IQ tests are actually useful in measuring anything?
No, if you want to find out, you look it up. I am satisfied that the IQ testing which has been used for many years is the best assessment that we have and have no reason to question it.
Nevertheless, even if you did get off your behind and do your own research, I'm sure that you will find any other excuse you can think of to avoid addressing the question posed in the OP. Might my suspicion be correct?

#29
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Mandrakel
I've given you the proof in the other forum we've discussed your "confidence" in IQ tests is precisely the same as Theists' "confidence" in God. At least to me, you are essentially an unreasonable theist bud. 
Topic's author
#30
Mandrakel
Mandrakel's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 144
0
2
2
Mandrakel's avatar
Mandrakel
0
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
I've given you the proof in the other forum we've discussed your "confidence" in IQ tests is precisely the same as Theists' "confidence" in God. .....unreasonable theist
You've had plenty of opportunity to address the topic and absurd, weird trolling is hardly the way to go.
I have posted a serious, contentious, socially conscious subject and I suggest that if you are hell-bent on continually trying to divert the topic with repetitive, frivolous nonsense then don't bother posting at all.