4th Grade "Science" Quiz - Were you there?

[LittleNipper]

Science is not interested in "truth". That is the terrain of the religious. Science is interested in facts. We observe the physical world and record what we see. If a scientist begins talking about morality he is no longer a scientist, he has become a high priest advocating for whatever religion he happens to be pushing..

It's interesting to hear you say that science is not interested in truth. Are scientists interested in lies then? I would say that science is only interested in truth. Truths that can be observed, truths that can be documented, truths that can be measured, truths that can be tested. Truth doesn't really have anything to do with morality except to say that it is immoral to lie.

There isn't really anything wrong with scientists talking about morality either. As long as they understand where the science ends and the morality begins.

No, you misunderstand.
Think of it this way.

The scientific method really deals in probabilities.
As more and more evidence points towards a likely explanation, 'science' can say that "that explanation is the most likely".
However, no matter how strongly a conclusion is proved and accepted, 'science' is always open to new evidence that points to a different conclusion.

Science is a tool that has no feelings. Now the scientific community at large is an entirely different matter... The scientific community has an agenda. That agenda is to remain in charge/control. They do not like change or ideas that contradict what they hold to and have spent a lifetime presenting and supporting. If the precepts of Creationism are entirely true, then the scientific community which has been espousing evolution upward progression from primordeal soup and the big bang look stupid at best if not frauds. No one wants to look like a fraud. And people that have nothing but their power are not likely to give it up without a fight...

 

[Flopper]

I heard an interesting podcast a while back that argued that Creationism etc, by trying to do scientific research were undermining their own religion.
By looking for proof of the veracity of their religion's claims they were undermining the very central pillar of that religion - Faith.
A true adherent to a religion doesn't need proof...they have Faith.

Unlike scientists, research from the creationist point of view is not to discovery the truth because they've already discovered it in the Bible. Their research is to support what they already know which is a waste of time and money

 

[Flopper]

It's interesting to hear you say that science is not interested in truth. Are scientists interested in lies then? I would say that science is only interested in truth. Truths that can be observed, truths that can be documented, truths that can be measured, truths that can be tested. Truth doesn't really have anything to do with morality except to say that it is immoral to lie.

There isn't really anything wrong with scientists talking about morality either. As long as they understand where the science ends and the morality begins.

No, you misunderstand.
Think of it this way.

The scientific method really deals in probabilities.
As more and more evidence points towards a likely explanation, 'science' can say that "that explanation is the most likely".
However, no matter how strongly a conclusion is proved and accepted, 'science' is always open to new evidence that points to a different conclusion.

Science is a tool that has no feelings. Now the scientific community at large is an entirely different matter... The scientific community has an agenda. That agenda is to remain in charge/control. They do not like change or ideas that contradict what they hold to and have spent a lifetime presenting and supporting. If the precepts of Creationism are entirely true, then the scientific community which has been espousing evolution upward progression from primordeal soup and the big bang look stupid at best if not frauds. No one wants to look like a fraud. And people that have nothing but their power are not likely to give it up without a fight...

Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang theory or the origin of life. It only deals with the evolution of life. The basic postulates of the theory have had minor change due to additional research in Biology. Those postulates have been the foundation for further research in a number of different fields of science. There have been thousands of conclusions based on that research. Most of those of those conclusions have been validated by research and peer review. However some of the conclusion have changed and a few have been discarded. This is the way science works.

 

[idb]

It's interesting to hear you say that science is not interested in truth. Are scientists interested in lies then? I would say that science is only interested in truth. Truths that can be observed, truths that can be documented, truths that can be measured, truths that can be tested. Truth doesn't really have anything to do with morality except to say that it is immoral to lie.

There isn't really anything wrong with scientists talking about morality either. As long as they understand where the science ends and the morality begins.

No, you misunderstand.
Think of it this way.

The scientific method really deals in probabilities.
As more and more evidence points towards a likely explanation, 'science' can say that "that explanation is the most likely".
However, no matter how strongly a conclusion is proved and accepted, 'science' is always open to new evidence that points to a different conclusion.

Science is a tool that has no feelings. Now the scientific community at large is an entirely different matter... The scientific community has an agenda. That agenda is to remain in charge/control. They do not like change or ideas that contradict what they hold to and have spent a lifetime presenting and supporting. If the precepts of Creationism are entirely true, then the scientific community which has been espousing evolution upward progression from primordeal soup and the big bang look stupid at best if not frauds. No one wants to look like a fraud. And people that have nothing but their power are not likely to give it up without a fight...

Where have you been?
Have we really got this far into the discussion before a conspiracy theory emerged?

 

[newpolitics]

It's interesting to hear you say that science is not interested in truth. Are scientists interested in lies then? I would say that science is only interested in truth. Truths that can be observed, truths that can be documented, truths that can be measured, truths that can be tested. Truth doesn't really have anything to do with morality except to say that it is immoral to lie.

There isn't really anything wrong with scientists talking about morality either. As long as they understand where the science ends and the morality begins.

No, you misunderstand.
Think of it this way.

The scientific method really deals in probabilities.
As more and more evidence points towards a likely explanation, 'science' can say that "that explanation is the most likely".
However, no matter how strongly a conclusion is proved and accepted, 'science' is always open to new evidence that points to a different conclusion.

Science is a tool that has no feelings. Now the scientific community at large is an entirely different matter... The scientific community has an agenda. That agenda is to remain in charge/control. They do not like change or ideas that contradict what they hold to and have spent a lifetime presenting and supporting. If the precepts of Creationism are entirely true, then the scientific community which has been espousing evolution upward progression from primordeal soup and the big bang look stupid at best if not frauds. No one wants to look like a fraud. And people that have nothing but their power are not likely to give it up without a fight...

Science is a conspiracy to hide the truth. Or... creationism has no empirical support and science is not going to compromise itself to satisfy the religious beliefs of a few. Ill go with the latter.

 

[Agit8r]

snopes.com: 4th Grade Science Quiz

Assuming that this is genuine (still pending verification) is this right or wrong for children to be taught in schools as "science"?

(Note that attacks on Snopes will be considered to be a deflection under the assumption that this is genuine.)

Is this the "science education" you want for your own 4th grader? What is the purpose of handicapping American children by giving them false information rather than a fact based education? Religion belongs in the home and places of worship. Schools are where children are supposed to learn about the real world so that one day they will know enough in order to survive.

So the question is a simple one. Is this what you want your own children to be taught in school? Yes or no?

It harms the child, and the rest of society.

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves therefore are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe their minds must be improved to a certain degree. This indeed is not all that is necessary, though it be essentially necessary."
-- Thomas Jefferson; from 'Notes on the State of Virginia' Query 14

 

[FA_Q2]

It harms the child, and the rest of society.

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves therefore are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe their minds must be improved to a certain degree. This indeed is not all that is necessary, though it be essentially necessary."
-- Thomas Jefferson; from 'Notes on the State of Virginia' Query 14

It only harms society if you believe that society is harmed without thought control.

The reality here is that this ‘test’ is unacceptable in the public school system, was not administered there and is only given to a minute section of the populous who have not only paid to get this o their children but also believe in what it represents. You enjoy a vast amount of freedom that gives you and ‘society’ what it has and that is going to come with things like this. There is nothing here that is harming anyone but you can bet your ass that the prevention of people entering into this type of education when they wish it and pay for it would harm ‘society’ a great deal.

Freedom allows other to do things that you disagree with as much as it allows you to do the things that you wish to do.

 

[Foxfyre]

Then I am at a loss to understand what you are saying, my dear Foxy. Please help me out a little bit here because we "dedicated progressives" need to come to grips with what are your concerns and what you believe to be the appropriate remedies for them. Without specifics we will just blunder around and make things even worse. So what do we need to go about changing to put things right. (No pun intended. )

The remedy is to begin now, slowly and carefully so as not to create extreme pain for those already enslaved to the federal government, to transfer ALL federal programs, functions, and initiatives that were always intended to be managed by the states back to the states to manage if they choose to do so.

What if some do and some don't?

Bust the federal government back to the functions originally assigned to it by the U.S. Constitution. That would remove most, if not all, corruption from the federal government and those corrupted by it, and would give us a chance to restore the government of the people that the Founders intended.

Thank you for the reply. A great deal of the current corruption exists because of the functions originally assigned. In defense alone the corporate welfare corruption is rampant. The constant demand that the US must intervene in every single war is nothing more than the special interests lobbying congress because they know that the defense contractors will receive hundreds of billions of our taxpayer dollars when that happens. If we are going to eliminate corruption let's tackle the biggest problems first and foremost, right? (We need to start a separate thread to debate this further. Which would be the appropriate forum?)

While focusing on education in particular per this thread is, in my opinion, a good thing to do, to deal with the role of government in a broader sense, I think this thread would be a good vehicle without having to start yet another one:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-the-people-by-the-people-for-the-people.html

But we won't deal with corruption in government without agreeing on the principle or value regarding the role of government; i.e. whether the people or the government will decide how the people's resources will be used.

And to bring it back to the thread topic, most--I would say all of us--would strongly resent the government telling us that we are not allowed to believe in God or profess that. Or the government telling us that all citizens will believe in God and will profess that. And for those who bother to think at all, we also don't want the government telling us what foods we must and must not eat, what reading material is legal and what is not, who we must praise and who we must not, or where we must live, what job we will be required to have, or the style of clothing that we must wear when we leave the house.

So why would anybody argue to give government the power to dictate what can and cannot be taught to our child in Fourth Grade science?

 

[Derideo_Te]

The remedy is to begin now, slowly and carefully so as not to create extreme pain for those already enslaved to the federal government, to transfer ALL federal programs, functions, and initiatives that were always intended to be managed by the states back to the states to manage if they choose to do so.

What if some do and some don't?

Bust the federal government back to the functions originally assigned to it by the U.S. Constitution. That would remove most, if not all, corruption from the federal government and those corrupted by it, and would give us a chance to restore the government of the people that the Founders intended.

Thank you for the reply. A great deal of the current corruption exists because of the functions originally assigned. In defense alone the corporate welfare corruption is rampant. The constant demand that the US must intervene in every single war is nothing more than the special interests lobbying congress because they know that the defense contractors will receive hundreds of billions of our taxpayer dollars when that happens. If we are going to eliminate corruption let's tackle the biggest problems first and foremost, right? (We need to start a separate thread to debate this further. Which would be the appropriate forum?)

While focusing on education in particular per this thread is, in my opinion, a good thing to do, to deal with the role of government in a broader sense, I think this thread would be a good vehicle without having to start yet another one:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-the-people-by-the-people-for-the-people.html

But we won't deal with corruption in government without agreeing on the principle or value regarding the role of government; i.e. whether the people or the government will decide how the people's resources will be used.

And to bring it back to the thread topic, most--I would say all of us--would strongly resent the government telling us that we are not allowed to believe in God or profess that. Or the government telling us that all citizens will believe in God and will profess that. And for those who bother to think at all, we also don't want the government telling us what foods we must and must not eat, what reading material is legal and what is not, who we must praise and who we must not, or where we must live, what job we will be required to have, or the style of clothing that we must wear when we leave the house.

So why would anybody argue to give government the power to dictate what can and cannot be taught to our child in Fourth Grade science?

Thomas Jefferson provided plenty of relevant arguments;

Quotations on Education « Thomas Jefferson?s Monticello

Quotations on Education

1782. (Notes on the State of Virginia) "Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree."

1785 August 19. (to Peter Carr) "An honest heart being the first blessing, a knowing head is the second."[1]

1786 August 13. (to George Wythe) "I think by far the most important bill in our whole code is that for the diffusion of knowledge among the people. No other sure foundation can be devised, for the preservation of freedom and happiness...Preach, my dear Sir, a crusade against ignorance; establish & improve the law for educating the common people. Let our countrymen know that the people alone can protect us against these evils [tyranny, oppression, etc.] and that the tax which will be paid for this purpose is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance."[2]

1786 August 27. (to Thomas Mann Randolph) "Knowledge indeed is a desirable, a lovely possession."[3]

1787 December 20. (to James Madison) "Above all things I hope the education of the common people will be attended to ; convinced that on their good sense we may rely with the most security for the preservation of a due degree of liberty."[4]

1789 January 8. (to Richard Price) "...wherever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government..."[5]

1810 May 6. (to the Trustees of the Lottery for East Tennessee College) "No one more sincerely wishes the spread of information among mankind than I do, and none has greater confidence in it's effect towards supporting free & good government."[6]

1816 January 6. (to Charles Yancey) "If a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilisation, it expects what never was & never will be."[7]

1818 January 14. (to Joseph C. Cabell) "Now let us see what the present primary schools cost us, on the supposition that all the children of 10. 11. & 12. years old are, as they ought to be, at school: and, if they are not, so much the work is the system; for they will be untaught, and their ignorance & vices will, in future life cost us much dearer in their consequences, than it would have done, in their correction, by a good education."[9]

1818 January 14. (to Joseph C. Cabell) "A system of general instruction, which shall reach every description of our citizens from the richest to the poorest, as it was the earliest, so will it be the latest, of all the public concerns in which I shall permit myself to take an interest."[10]

1818 August 4. "The objects of this primary eduction determine its character and limits. These objects are To give to every citizen the information he needs for the transaction of his own business; To enable him to calculate for himself, and to express and preserve his ideas, his contracts and accounts, in writing; To improve by reading, his morals and faculties; To understand his duties to his neighbors and country, and to discharge with competence the functions confided to him by either; To know his rights; to exercise with order and justice those he retains; to choose with discretion the fiduciary of those he delegates; and to notice their conduct with diligence, with candor and judgement; And, in general, to observe with intelligence and faithfulness all the social relations under which he shall be placed. To instruct the mass of our citizens in these, their rights, interests and duties, as men and citizens, being then the objects of education in the primary schools, whether privet or public, in them should be taught reading, writing and numerical arithmetic, the elements of mensuration...and the outlines of geography and history."[11]

1820 September 28. (to William C. Jarvis) "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves: and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their controul with a wholsome discretion, the remedy is, not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. this is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."[12]

1822 October 21. (to C.C. Blatchly) "I look to the diffusion of light and education as the resource to be relied on for ameliorating the condition, promoting the virtue, and advancing the happiness of man."[13]

1824 March 27. (to Edward Everett) "The qualifications for self-government in society are not innate. They are the result of habit and long training."[14]

 

[Foxfyre]

What if some do and some don't?


Thank you for the reply. A great deal of the current corruption exists because of the functions originally assigned. In defense alone the corporate welfare corruption is rampant. The constant demand that the US must intervene in every single war is nothing more than the special interests lobbying congress because they know that the defense contractors will receive hundreds of billions of our taxpayer dollars when that happens. If we are going to eliminate corruption let's tackle the biggest problems first and foremost, right? (We need to start a separate thread to debate this further. Which would be the appropriate forum?)

While focusing on education in particular per this thread is, in my opinion, a good thing to do, to deal with the role of government in a broader sense, I think this thread would be a good vehicle without having to start yet another one:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-the-people-by-the-people-for-the-people.html

But we won't deal with corruption in government without agreeing on the principle or value regarding the role of government; i.e. whether the people or the government will decide how the people's resources will be used.

And to bring it back to the thread topic, most--I would say all of us--would strongly resent the government telling us that we are not allowed to believe in God or profess that. Or the government telling us that all citizens will believe in God and will profess that. And for those who bother to think at all, we also don't want the government telling us what foods we must and must not eat, what reading material is legal and what is not, who we must praise and who we must not, or where we must live, what job we will be required to have, or the style of clothing that we must wear when we leave the house.

So why would anybody argue to give government the power to dictate what can and cannot be taught to our child in Fourth Grade science?

Thomas Jefferson provided plenty of relevant arguments;

Quotations on Education « Thomas Jefferson?s Monticello

Quotations on Education

1782. (Notes on the State of Virginia) "Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree."

1785 August 19. (to Peter Carr) "An honest heart being the first blessing, a knowing head is the second."[1]

1786 August 13. (to George Wythe) "I think by far the most important bill in our whole code is that for the diffusion of knowledge among the people. No other sure foundation can be devised, for the preservation of freedom and happiness...Preach, my dear Sir, a crusade against ignorance; establish & improve the law for educating the common people. Let our countrymen know that the people alone can protect us against these evils [tyranny, oppression, etc.] and that the tax which will be paid for this purpose is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance."[2]

1786 August 27. (to Thomas Mann Randolph) "Knowledge indeed is a desirable, a lovely possession."[3]

1787 December 20. (to James Madison) "Above all things I hope the education of the common people will be attended to ; convinced that on their good sense we may rely with the most security for the preservation of a due degree of liberty."[4]

1789 January 8. (to Richard Price) "...wherever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government..."[5]

1810 May 6. (to the Trustees of the Lottery for East Tennessee College) "No one more sincerely wishes the spread of information among mankind than I do, and none has greater confidence in it's effect towards supporting free & good government."[6]

1816 January 6. (to Charles Yancey) "If a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilisation, it expects what never was & never will be."[7]

1818 January 14. (to Joseph C. Cabell) "Now let us see what the present primary schools cost us, on the supposition that all the children of 10. 11. & 12. years old are, as they ought to be, at school: and, if they are not, so much the work is the system; for they will be untaught, and their ignorance & vices will, in future life cost us much dearer in their consequences, than it would have done, in their correction, by a good education."[9]

1818 January 14. (to Joseph C. Cabell) "A system of general instruction, which shall reach every description of our citizens from the richest to the poorest, as it was the earliest, so will it be the latest, of all the public concerns in which I shall permit myself to take an interest."[10]

1818 August 4. "The objects of this primary eduction determine its character and limits. These objects are To give to every citizen the information he needs for the transaction of his own business; To enable him to calculate for himself, and to express and preserve his ideas, his contracts and accounts, in writing; To improve by reading, his morals and faculties; To understand his duties to his neighbors and country, and to discharge with competence the functions confided to him by either; To know his rights; to exercise with order and justice those he retains; to choose with discretion the fiduciary of those he delegates; and to notice their conduct with diligence, with candor and judgement; And, in general, to observe with intelligence and faithfulness all the social relations under which he shall be placed. To instruct the mass of our citizens in these, their rights, interests and duties, as men and citizens, being then the objects of education in the primary schools, whether privet or public, in them should be taught reading, writing and numerical arithmetic, the elements of mensuration...and the outlines of geography and history."[11]

1820 September 28. (to William C. Jarvis) "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves: and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their controul with a wholsome discretion, the remedy is, not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. this is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."[12]

1822 October 21. (to C.C. Blatchly) "I look to the diffusion of light and education as the resource to be relied on for ameliorating the condition, promoting the virtue, and advancing the happiness of man."[13]

1824 March 27. (to Edward Everett) "The qualifications for self-government in society are not innate. They are the result of habit and long training."[14]

But none of the quotations you cited, all taken out of context, speaks to the issue of whether government should dictate what a Fourth Grader can and cannot be taught, however.

I will agree that Jefferson was a powerful advocate for education including public education, and saw that as one function of society that should be provided and paid for from the common purse. He was so much under the conviction that the Constitution would work only for a religious, moral, and EDUCATED people, that at one point, he deviated from his anti-federalist convictions to propose federal funding of education, but the concept was argued down and was never brought to a vote. He also supported a concept that only those who could read and write should be able to vote because he was so convinced that the Constitution had to have an informed electorate in order to survive. That never gained any legs either.

Jefferson then rightfully turned his attentions to education in the states--where it belonged in the first place--and was instrumental in the founding of the University of Virginia in 1819 and considered that his greatest achievement. He knew, however, that education begins with the elementary age student and was a passionate advocate for the local schools.

 

[Foxfyre]

snopes.com: 4th Grade Science Quiz

Assuming that this is genuine (still pending verification) is this right or wrong for children to be taught in schools as "science"?

(Note that attacks on Snopes will be considered to be a deflection under the assumption that this is genuine.)

Is this the "science education" you want for your own 4th grader? What is the purpose of handicapping American children by giving them false information rather than a fact based education? Religion belongs in the home and places of worship. Schools are where children are supposed to learn about the real world so that one day they will know enough in order to survive.

So the question is a simple one. Is this what you want your own children to be taught in school? Yes or no?

It harms the child, and the rest of society.

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves therefore are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe their minds must be improved to a certain degree. This indeed is not all that is necessary, though it be essentially necessary."
-- Thomas Jefferson; from 'Notes on the State of Virginia' Query 14

I agree that there is no advantage to any individual to be kept ignorant, and there is no advantage to society to be populated by ignorant individuals. The question, however, is what should the role of government be in correcting that ignorance?

Again, if a parent or society is not free to teach creationism or anything else not accepted as 'fact' by the majority, what freedom exists? If the government can dictate that a child MUST be taught evolution and must NOT be taught creationism, what prevents that same government from dictating that children MUST be taught that certain races are inferior or some groups of people are a threat to society or marriage is obsolete and should be banished or if it feels good, do it?

It is one thing to discuss debate, and promote good, accurate, honest, intelligent information, and quite another to give government the power to dictate that all people must accept what the government dictates is good information.

 

[numan]

Of course. All governments fail. Ours is merely following the normal progression of all Republics, we've lasted almost as long as the Roman Republic did and we are suffering from the same political corruption that brought them down. Next up we will have a dictatorship of some sort. I just hope I and my daughter are long gone before that happens.

Too late.
.

 

[Derideo_Te]

While focusing on education in particular per this thread is, in my opinion, a good thing to do, to deal with the role of government in a broader sense, I think this thread would be a good vehicle without having to start yet another one:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-the-people-by-the-people-for-the-people.html

But we won't deal with corruption in government without agreeing on the principle or value regarding the role of government; i.e. whether the people or the government will decide how the people's resources will be used.

And to bring it back to the thread topic, most--I would say all of us--would strongly resent the government telling us that we are not allowed to believe in God or profess that. Or the government telling us that all citizens will believe in God and will profess that. And for those who bother to think at all, we also don't want the government telling us what foods we must and must not eat, what reading material is legal and what is not, who we must praise and who we must not, or where we must live, what job we will be required to have, or the style of clothing that we must wear when we leave the house.

So why would anybody argue to give government the power to dictate what can and cannot be taught to our child in Fourth Grade science?

Thomas Jefferson provided plenty of relevant arguments;

Quotations on Education « Thomas Jefferson?s Monticello

Quotations on Education

1782. (Notes on the State of Virginia) "Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree."

1785 August 19. (to Peter Carr) "An honest heart being the first blessing, a knowing head is the second."[1]

1786 August 13. (to George Wythe) "I think by far the most important bill in our whole code is that for the diffusion of knowledge among the people. No other sure foundation can be devised, for the preservation of freedom and happiness...Preach, my dear Sir, a crusade against ignorance; establish & improve the law for educating the common people. Let our countrymen know that the people alone can protect us against these evils [tyranny, oppression, etc.] and that the tax which will be paid for this purpose is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance."[2]

1786 August 27. (to Thomas Mann Randolph) "Knowledge indeed is a desirable, a lovely possession."[3]

1787 December 20. (to James Madison) "Above all things I hope the education of the common people will be attended to ; convinced that on their good sense we may rely with the most security for the preservation of a due degree of liberty."[4]

1789 January 8. (to Richard Price) "...wherever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government..."[5]

1810 May 6. (to the Trustees of the Lottery for East Tennessee College) "No one more sincerely wishes the spread of information among mankind than I do, and none has greater confidence in it's effect towards supporting free & good government."[6]

1816 January 6. (to Charles Yancey) "If a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilisation, it expects what never was & never will be."[7]

1818 January 14. (to Joseph C. Cabell) "Now let us see what the present primary schools cost us, on the supposition that all the children of 10. 11. & 12. years old are, as they ought to be, at school: and, if they are not, so much the work is the system; for they will be untaught, and their ignorance & vices will, in future life cost us much dearer in their consequences, than it would have done, in their correction, by a good education."[9]

1818 January 14. (to Joseph C. Cabell) "A system of general instruction, which shall reach every description of our citizens from the richest to the poorest, as it was the earliest, so will it be the latest, of all the public concerns in which I shall permit myself to take an interest."[10]

1818 August 4. "The objects of this primary eduction determine its character and limits. These objects are To give to every citizen the information he needs for the transaction of his own business; To enable him to calculate for himself, and to express and preserve his ideas, his contracts and accounts, in writing; To improve by reading, his morals and faculties; To understand his duties to his neighbors and country, and to discharge with competence the functions confided to him by either; To know his rights; to exercise with order and justice those he retains; to choose with discretion the fiduciary of those he delegates; and to notice their conduct with diligence, with candor and judgement; And, in general, to observe with intelligence and faithfulness all the social relations under which he shall be placed. To instruct the mass of our citizens in these, their rights, interests and duties, as men and citizens, being then the objects of education in the primary schools, whether privet or public, in them should be taught reading, writing and numerical arithmetic, the elements of mensuration...and the outlines of geography and history."[11]

1820 September 28. (to William C. Jarvis) "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves: and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their controul with a wholsome discretion, the remedy is, not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. this is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."[12]

1822 October 21. (to C.C. Blatchly) "I look to the diffusion of light and education as the resource to be relied on for ameliorating the condition, promoting the virtue, and advancing the happiness of man."[13]

1824 March 27. (to Edward Everett) "The qualifications for self-government in society are not innate. They are the result of habit and long training."[14]

But none of the quotations you cited, all taken out of context, speaks to the issue of whether government should dictate what a Fourth Grader can and cannot be taught, however.

I will agree that Jefferson was a powerful advocate for education including public education, and saw that as one function of society that should be provided and paid for from the common purse. He was so much under the conviction that the Constitution would work only for a religious, moral, and EDUCATED people, that at one point, he deviated from his anti-federalist convictions to propose federal funding of education, but the concept was argued down and was never brought to a vote. He also supported a concept that only those who could read and write should be able to vote because he was so convinced that the Constitution had to have an informed electorate in order to survive. That never gained any legs either.

Jefferson then rightfully turned his attentions to education in the states--where it belonged in the first place--and was instrumental in the founding of the University of Virginia in 1819 and considered that his greatest achievement. He knew, however, that education begins with the elementary age student and was a passionate advocate for the local schools.

The trite phrase "he who pays the piper calls the tune" sprang to mind. If the government is paying for an educated populace then it does get to decide what is being taught. That is not to say that there are no restrictions. Those restrictions include those found in the bill of rights which happen to be a double edged sword. Freedom of expression is fundamental to academia since it ensures that there are no taboos but that only applies to adults. When it comes to children there are more stringent criteria. The right to "freedom of religion" does not override the restriction imposed by the establishment clause.

With your indulgence a small side track might make this a little clearer. You objected to the government deciding on what size of unhealthy dose of sugar water you should be allowed to purchase. Since the government is footing the bill for the treatment of expensive obesity related diseases it makes economic sense to promote healthier choices in order to reduce long term tax increases. The same concept applied to smoking because it was the government who was footing the long term bill for the expensive cancer treatments. So ultimately it is a cost/benefit equation. If you insist upon wasting valuable taxpayer resources to teach children unfounded religious fairy tales the long term cost will be a nation that it far less economically competitive because the populace is ill educated. Jefferson would be on the side of those who want to ensure that 4th graders learn real science.

 

[Foxfyre]

Thomas Jefferson provided plenty of relevant arguments;

But none of the quotations you cited, all taken out of context, speaks to the issue of whether government should dictate what a Fourth Grader can and cannot be taught, however.

I will agree that Jefferson was a powerful advocate for education including public education, and saw that as one function of society that should be provided and paid for from the common purse. He was so much under the conviction that the Constitution would work only for a religious, moral, and EDUCATED people, that at one point, he deviated from his anti-federalist convictions to propose federal funding of education, but the concept was argued down and was never brought to a vote. He also supported a concept that only those who could read and write should be able to vote because he was so convinced that the Constitution had to have an informed electorate in order to survive. That never gained any legs either.

Jefferson then rightfully turned his attentions to education in the states--where it belonged in the first place--and was instrumental in the founding of the University of Virginia in 1819 and considered that his greatest achievement. He knew, however, that education begins with the elementary age student and was a passionate advocate for the local schools.

The trite phrase "he who pays the piper calls the tune" sprang to mind. If the government is paying for an educated populace then it does get to decide what is being taught. That is not to say that there are no restrictions. Those restrictions include those found in the bill of rights which happen to be a double edged sword. Freedom of expression is fundamental to academia since it ensures that there are no taboos but that only applies to adults. When it comes to children there are more stringent criteria. The right to "freedom of religion" does not override the restriction imposed by the establishment clause.

With your indulgence a small side track might make this a little clearer. You objected to the government deciding on what size of unhealthy dose of sugar water you should be allowed to purchase. Since the government is footing the bill for the treatment of expensive obesity related diseases it makes economic sense to promote healthier choices in order to reduce long term tax increases. The same concept applied to smoking because it was the government who was footing the long term bill for the expensive cancer treatments. So ultimately it is a cost/benefit equation. If you insist upon wasting valuable taxpayer resources to teach children unfounded religious fairy tales the long term cost will be a nation that it far less economically competitive because the populace is ill educated. Jefferson would be on the side of those who want to ensure that 4th graders learn real science.

But in my more perfect world the government neither pays to treat my obesity or the consequences of my smoking, therefore it has no power to regular how much sugar water I drink or how many cigarettes I smoke. Unless we have freedom to be stupid, to choose wrongly, or rise and fall on what economic choices we make of any nature, we have no freedom at all.

However much I would object to it being in my child's curriculum, if I do not have the right to teach my Fourth grader that God created Adam and Eve, the world is flat, and the moon is made of green cheese, there is no freedom of thought, of religion, of self determination of any kind.

Are you going to visit the thread I linked for you that focuses on this concept?

 

[Derideo_Te]

But none of the quotations you cited, all taken out of context, speaks to the issue of whether government should dictate what a Fourth Grader can and cannot be taught, however.

I will agree that Jefferson was a powerful advocate for education including public education, and saw that as one function of society that should be provided and paid for from the common purse. He was so much under the conviction that the Constitution would work only for a religious, moral, and EDUCATED people, that at one point, he deviated from his anti-federalist convictions to propose federal funding of education, but the concept was argued down and was never brought to a vote. He also supported a concept that only those who could read and write should be able to vote because he was so convinced that the Constitution had to have an informed electorate in order to survive. That never gained any legs either.

Jefferson then rightfully turned his attentions to education in the states--where it belonged in the first place--and was instrumental in the founding of the University of Virginia in 1819 and considered that his greatest achievement. He knew, however, that education begins with the elementary age student and was a passionate advocate for the local schools.

The trite phrase "he who pays the piper calls the tune" sprang to mind. If the government is paying for an educated populace then it does get to decide what is being taught. That is not to say that there are no restrictions. Those restrictions include those found in the bill of rights which happen to be a double edged sword. Freedom of expression is fundamental to academia since it ensures that there are no taboos but that only applies to adults. When it comes to children there are more stringent criteria. The right to "freedom of religion" does not override the restriction imposed by the establishment clause.

With your indulgence a small side track might make this a little clearer. You objected to the government deciding on what size of unhealthy dose of sugar water you should be allowed to purchase. Since the government is footing the bill for the treatment of expensive obesity related diseases it makes economic sense to promote healthier choices in order to reduce long term tax increases. The same concept applied to smoking because it was the government who was footing the long term bill for the expensive cancer treatments. So ultimately it is a cost/benefit equation. If you insist upon wasting valuable taxpayer resources to teach children unfounded religious fairy tales the long term cost will be a nation that it far less economically competitive because the populace is ill educated. Jefferson would be on the side of those who want to ensure that 4th graders learn real science.

But in my more perfect world the government neither pays to treat my obesity or the consequences of my smoking, therefore it has no power to regular how much sugar water I drink or how many cigarettes I smoke. Unless we have freedom to be stupid, to choose wrongly, or rise and fall on what economic choices we make of any nature, we have no freedom at all.

However much I would object to it being in my child's curriculum, if I do not have the right to teach my Fourth grader that God created Adam and Eve, the world is flat, and the moon is made of green cheese, there is no freedom of thought, of religion, of self determination of any kind.

Are you going to visit the thread I linked for you that focuses on this concept?

Sorry. Have it bookmarked but things are a little hectic at the moment to spare the time to read through it entirely before posting.

Your ideal world assumes that everyone is 100% responsible and accountable AND has the financial opportunities to meet all of those obligations. No one is denying anyone the freedom to be stupid either. The point here is that everything has a price and are your neighbors willing to foot the bill for your personal indulgences when it comes to your child's education?

 

[Foxfyre]

The trite phrase "he who pays the piper calls the tune" sprang to mind. If the government is paying for an educated populace then it does get to decide what is being taught. That is not to say that there are no restrictions. Those restrictions include those found in the bill of rights which happen to be a double edged sword. Freedom of expression is fundamental to academia since it ensures that there are no taboos but that only applies to adults. When it comes to children there are more stringent criteria. The right to "freedom of religion" does not override the restriction imposed by the establishment clause.

With your indulgence a small side track might make this a little clearer. You objected to the government deciding on what size of unhealthy dose of sugar water you should be allowed to purchase. Since the government is footing the bill for the treatment of expensive obesity related diseases it makes economic sense to promote healthier choices in order to reduce long term tax increases. The same concept applied to smoking because it was the government who was footing the long term bill for the expensive cancer treatments. So ultimately it is a cost/benefit equation. If you insist upon wasting valuable taxpayer resources to teach children unfounded religious fairy tales the long term cost will be a nation that it far less economically competitive because the populace is ill educated. Jefferson would be on the side of those who want to ensure that 4th graders learn real science.

But in my more perfect world the government neither pays to treat my obesity or the consequences of my smoking, therefore it has no power to regular how much sugar water I drink or how many cigarettes I smoke. Unless we have freedom to be stupid, to choose wrongly, or rise and fall on what economic choices we make of any nature, we have no freedom at all.

However much I would object to it being in my child's curriculum, if I do not have the right to teach my Fourth grader that God created Adam and Eve, the world is flat, and the moon is made of green cheese, there is no freedom of thought, of religion, of self determination of any kind.

Are you going to visit the thread I linked for you that focuses on this concept?

Sorry. Have it bookmarked but things are a little hectic at the moment to spare the time to read through it entirely before posting.

Your ideal world assumes that everyone is 100% responsible and accountable AND has the financial opportunities to meet all of those obligations. No one is denying anyone the freedom to be stupid either. The point here is that everything has a price and are your neighbors willing to foot the bill for your personal indulgences when it comes to your child's education?

The difference between you and me is that I see my neighbors as obligated neither to educate my child or be responsible for the consequences of his/her education. My ideal world assumes nothing other than liberty requires the choice to be wrong as well as right, stupid as well as smart, ignorant as well as educated. I would hope most will choose rightly, be intelligent, and educate themselves, but you cannot have an ideal world by handing that responsibility to the government to do and thereby give it power to do anything it pleases.

Most especially when the government has produced a growing legacy of increasing wrong choices, ignorance, and poorly educated demographics across the land.

A moral society takes care of the truly helpless; however, that should not be the duty of the federal government. And liberty requires that government neither reward inadequacy, failure, and/or wrong choices nor punish competence, success, and better choices.

In a world in which liberty is valued, the parent, in cooperation with the local government/school board, teachers, and the people in the community should agree on a social contract that determines a) whether there should be a public school and b) what the curriculum in that school should be. The federal government should have no say in that whatsoever.

 

[numan]

'
In a world where the minds of the entire population are degraded by subtle brainwashing techniques and where people accept the most blatant lies as mother's milk, the fact of individuals obsessing about the trivia of public education is, at best, ironic, and at worst, pathetic.
.

 

[asterism]

'
In a world where the minds of the entire population are degraded by subtle brainwashing techniques and where people accept the most blatant lies as mother's milk, the fact of individuals obsessing about the trivia of public education is, at best, ironic, and at worst, pathetic.
.

So teachers lying to students is a bad thing right?

 

[Flopper]

But in my more perfect world the government neither pays to treat my obesity or the consequences of my smoking, therefore it has no power to regular how much sugar water I drink or how many cigarettes I smoke. Unless we have freedom to be stupid, to choose wrongly, or rise and fall on what economic choices we make of any nature, we have no freedom at all.

However much I would object to it being in my child's curriculum, if I do not have the right to teach my Fourth grader that God created Adam and Eve, the world is flat, and the moon is made of green cheese, there is no freedom of thought, of religion, of self determination of any kind.

Are you going to visit the thread I linked for you that focuses on this concept?

Sorry. Have it bookmarked but things are a little hectic at the moment to spare the time to read through it entirely before posting.

Your ideal world assumes that everyone is 100% responsible and accountable AND has the financial opportunities to meet all of those obligations. No one is denying anyone the freedom to be stupid either. The point here is that everything has a price and are your neighbors willing to foot the bill for your personal indulgences when it comes to your child's education?

The difference between you and me is that I see my neighbors as obligated neither to educate my child or be responsible for the consequences of his/her education. My ideal world assumes nothing other than liberty requires the choice to be wrong as well as right, stupid as well as smart, ignorant as well as educated. I would hope most will choose rightly, be intelligent, and educate themselves, but you cannot have an ideal world by handing that responsibility to the government to do and thereby give it power to do anything it pleases.

Most especially when the government has produced a growing legacy of increasing wrong choices, ignorance, and poorly educated demographics across the land.

A moral society takes care of the truly helpless; however, that should not be the duty of the federal government. And liberty requires that government neither reward inadequacy, failure, and/or wrong choices nor punish competence, success, and better choices.

In a world in which liberty is valued, the parent, in cooperation with the local government/school board, teachers, and the people in the community should agree on a social contract that determines a) whether there should be a public school and b) what the curriculum in that school should be. The federal government should have no say in that whatsoever.

This is not and never will be an ideal world. Rather than philosophizing about an ideal world, might it be better to discuss making things just a bit better in a very real world where most people are not willing to take responsibility for their acts, don't involve themselves in their children's education, aren't willing to help the truly needy, and total failures in life are never going to be successful.

 

[Agit8r]

While focusing on education in particular per this thread is, in my opinion, a good thing to do, to deal with the role of government in a broader sense, I think this thread would be a good vehicle without having to start yet another one:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-the-people-by-the-people-for-the-people.html

But we won't deal with corruption in government without agreeing on the principle or value regarding the role of government; i.e. whether the people or the government will decide how the people's resources will be used.

And to bring it back to the thread topic, most--I would say all of us--would strongly resent the government telling us that we are not allowed to believe in God or profess that. Or the government telling us that all citizens will believe in God and will profess that. And for those who bother to think at all, we also don't want the government telling us what foods we must and must not eat, what reading material is legal and what is not, who we must praise and who we must not, or where we must live, what job we will be required to have, or the style of clothing that we must wear when we leave the house.

So why would anybody argue to give government the power to dictate what can and cannot be taught to our child in Fourth Grade science?

Thomas Jefferson provided plenty of relevant arguments;

Quotations on Education « Thomas Jefferson?s Monticello

Quotations on Education

1782. (Notes on the State of Virginia) "Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree."

1785 August 19. (to Peter Carr) "An honest heart being the first blessing, a knowing head is the second."[1]

1786 August 13. (to George Wythe) "I think by far the most important bill in our whole code is that for the diffusion of knowledge among the people. No other sure foundation can be devised, for the preservation of freedom and happiness...Preach, my dear Sir, a crusade against ignorance; establish & improve the law for educating the common people. Let our countrymen know that the people alone can protect us against these evils [tyranny, oppression, etc.] and that the tax which will be paid for this purpose is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance."[2]

1786 August 27. (to Thomas Mann Randolph) "Knowledge indeed is a desirable, a lovely possession."[3]

1787 December 20. (to James Madison) "Above all things I hope the education of the common people will be attended to ; convinced that on their good sense we may rely with the most security for the preservation of a due degree of liberty."[4]

1789 January 8. (to Richard Price) "...wherever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government..."[5]

1810 May 6. (to the Trustees of the Lottery for East Tennessee College) "No one more sincerely wishes the spread of information among mankind than I do, and none has greater confidence in it's effect towards supporting free & good government."[6]

1816 January 6. (to Charles Yancey) "If a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilisation, it expects what never was & never will be."[7]

1818 January 14. (to Joseph C. Cabell) "Now let us see what the present primary schools cost us, on the supposition that all the children of 10. 11. & 12. years old are, as they ought to be, at school: and, if they are not, so much the work is the system; for they will be untaught, and their ignorance & vices will, in future life cost us much dearer in their consequences, than it would have done, in their correction, by a good education."[9]

1818 January 14. (to Joseph C. Cabell) "A system of general instruction, which shall reach every description of our citizens from the richest to the poorest, as it was the earliest, so will it be the latest, of all the public concerns in which I shall permit myself to take an interest."[10]

1818 August 4. "The objects of this primary eduction determine its character and limits. These objects are To give to every citizen the information he needs for the transaction of his own business; To enable him to calculate for himself, and to express and preserve his ideas, his contracts and accounts, in writing; To improve by reading, his morals and faculties; To understand his duties to his neighbors and country, and to discharge with competence the functions confided to him by either; To know his rights; to exercise with order and justice those he retains; to choose with discretion the fiduciary of those he delegates; and to notice their conduct with diligence, with candor and judgement; And, in general, to observe with intelligence and faithfulness all the social relations under which he shall be placed. To instruct the mass of our citizens in these, their rights, interests and duties, as men and citizens, being then the objects of education in the primary schools, whether privet or public, in them should be taught reading, writing and numerical arithmetic, the elements of mensuration...and the outlines of geography and history."[11]

1820 September 28. (to William C. Jarvis) "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves: and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their controul with a wholsome discretion, the remedy is, not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. this is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."[12]

1822 October 21. (to C.C. Blatchly) "I look to the diffusion of light and education as the resource to be relied on for ameliorating the condition, promoting the virtue, and advancing the happiness of man."[13]

1824 March 27. (to Edward Everett) "The qualifications for self-government in society are not innate. They are the result of habit and long training."[14]

But none of the quotations you cited, all taken out of context, speaks to the issue of whether government should dictate what a Fourth Grader can and cannot be taught, however.

I will agree that Jefferson was a powerful advocate for education including public education, and saw that as one function of society that should be provided and paid for from the common purse. He was so much under the conviction that the Constitution would work only for a religious, moral, and EDUCATED people, that at one point, he deviated from his anti-federalist convictions to propose federal funding of education, but the concept was argued down and was never brought to a vote. He also supported a concept that only those who could read and write should be able to vote because he was so convinced that the Constitution had to have an informed electorate in order to survive. That never gained any legs either.

Jefferson then rightfully turned his attentions to education in the states--where it belonged in the first place--and was instrumental in the founding of the University of Virginia in 1819 and considered that his greatest achievement. He knew, however, that education begins with the elementary age student and was a passionate advocate for the local schools.

A nicely written oversimplification.

"the great mass of the articles on which impost is paid are foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of Federal powers. By these operations new channels of communications will be opened between the States, the lines of separation will disappear, their interests will be identified, and their union cemented by new and indissoluble ties."
-- Thomas Jefferson; from 6th State of the Union Address (Dec. 2, 1806)