From: Stephen E. Jones <sejones@iinet.net.au>
>Reflectorites
>
>On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 11:14:34 +0100, Richard Wein wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>SJ>http://www.kcstar.com/item/pages/opinion.pat,opinion/3774a282.726,.html
>>>The Kansas City Star ... 07/26/00 ... Did the state writing committee
really
>>>believe, when it equated religious values with "superstition," "mystical
>>>inspiration" and "myths" in its draft, that the faithful wouldn't rise up
>>>out of their chairs?
>
>[...]
>
>RW>This is just the kind of misrepresentation that warrants the name
>>"propaganda". The committee did *not* equate religious values with
>>superstition. Here's the relevant passage:
>>
>>"In so doing, science distinguishes
>>itself from other ways of knowing and from other bodies of knowledge.
>>Explanations based on myths,
>>personal beliefs, religious values, mystical inspiration, superstition, or
>>authority may be personally
>>useful and socially relevant, but they are not scientific."
>>
>>It should be obvious to any moderately careful reader that these various
>>sources are being *listed*, not *equated*. The only thing they are
asserted
>>to have in common is that they cannot be used as the basis for scientific
>>explanations.
>
>This is not mathematics. Listing things together *is* equating them.
I wouldn't have bothered to reply to this nonsense but for the fact that I
have an error to correct below.
>Besides, Richard's fine distinction would not be noticed by the average
>reader. The implication is clear that "religious values" should be
>understood as being in the same category as "myths" and "superstition".
Perhaps the average member of the public might make such a mistake. But bear
in mind that the target audience of this document is not the public; it is
educators, who I expect would have a good enough command of English to
understand the passage's correct meaning.
Even if one were to accept (which I don't) that the passage was misleading
and should be deleted, that does not justify the mendacious assertion that
religious values and superstition were "equated". This might be excused as
an innocent error if the writer were an average member of the public, but a
"former information specialist with the Johnson County Library" should know
better.
>RW>Furthermore, one might assume, from reading the Kansas City Star
article,
>>that this passage was one of those deleted or changed by the Board of
>>Education. It wasn't. The BOE seems to have had no objection to it.
>
>Richard is simply wrong. The words do not appear in the final standards
>(see http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us/outcomes/science_12799.html), adopted
>by the KBoE in December 7, 1999. The Board read them the way most
>people would have and *did* have an objection to them.
You're right. I was referring to the document originally approved by the
Board on August 11th, 1999. I was unaware that they had approved further
amendments at a meeting on December 7th, 1999, which included the deletion
of this passage.
Richard Wein (Tich)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 17 2000 - 10:13:37 EDT