There is nothing wrong with being discriminatory, that's part of meeting individual needs.
maybe so, I dont agree but never mind. The point is though that the state shouldnt sponsor it.
School is currently much more than learning facts. School is about teaching for understanding, reasoning, evaluation, synthesis, discrimination etc. Facts are becoming worth less as google takes over.Ye sthat is what league tables and results are all about
the exams and qualifications are increasingly less based on facts, and if you look at CVA scores rather than exam results you get a better idea of how good a school is..
Mr Gove doesnt agree with this so it will no doubt change back again
In church schools the particualr religion is not taught as fact, it is taught as faith and it is,in most cases, not integrated with the curricular education. Evolution is taught in biology in religious schools.
You need to watch the Dawkins documentary I linked to earlier:
[url= http://www.channel4.com/programmes/faith-school-menace/4od ]Faith School Menance?[/url]
So they say there's is the only one true god but the others are not wrong or they do it so well they break the first commandmentYou shall have no other gods before me.
you might be surprised how rarely that comes up. They also don't teach that commandment as fact,but as faith.
Ye sthat is what league tables and results are all about 🙄
C'mon Junkyard, this is beneath you.
Either you know what league tables are based on and this statement is meaningless or you don't know what they are based on and you shouldn't be posting it.
No, i really don't need to watch / read Dawkins any more. He spectacularly misses the point by targeting polarities rather than the everyday beliefs.
. The point is though that the state shouldnt sponsor it.
I don't see why not, lots of taxpayers want it and other alternatives are available.
A_A that is just another league tabled based on exam passes related to intake "grade" or expectations or factors beyond the schools control. yesiot is better but it is still a league table. when did Maths and science get less fact based? Is there no correct answer in education anymore?
ofsted guidance BTW I accept the ability to think , reason ,articulate is also a neccessary skill etc
"No meaning can be attached to an absolute CVA value, and any ranking of schools by their CVA values is meaningless."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7545529.stm
Charlie yes religous people are known the world over for not taking the word of God as a fact and not really acting on it iirc it is what defines them as religous people - And you want to mock me [ you have a point re tables to be fair]
other alternatives are available
no you can only select to go to a faith school you cannot select to go to a non faith school you just get your nearest school they get the choice not us. Technically you can choose but the state will pay the transport if above 3 miles iirc but not if you choose to go to a non religous school
IIRC someone took a court case re this might have gone to Europe as well or be in the process
no you can only select to go to a faith school you cannot select to go to a non faith school you just get your nearest school they get the choice not us.
not sure what you mean here, you can usually chose to go to a few non-faith schools locally, and you can usually only get to your nearest faith school, if you want a faith school. Does that contradict your point?
CharlieMungus - Member. The point is though that the state shouldnt sponsor it.
I don't see why not, [b]lots of taxpayers want it[/b] and other alternatives are available.
Lots eh? In that case...
Source?
Lots eh? In that case...Source?
ermm... all the ones in all the faith schools in the UK?
Empirical evidence
science get less fact based
science is not based on facts its based on theories
charlie imagine you live in an area and there are only two schools locally both are religous ones. You can choose the faith school that matches yours. Imagine neither does then you can go to the nearest faith school that matches yours and have the transport paid by LEA. If you are a non believer you cannot go to the nearest non faith school and have your transport fees paid - you will get one of the faith schools. Only religous faith [ not absence] qualifies.
I am tired , hard week did I word it badly before?
Local authorities (LAs) must provide free home to school transport for children if they are between 5 and 16 years old and are attending their nearest suitable school. This is provided that the school is further away than the statutory walking distances, which are:•2 miles for pupils aged under 8
•3 miles for those aged 8 and over
Examples of a suitable school are:•a faith school if you have expressed a preference for a school based on your religion or belief
•a special school if your child has special educational needs (SEN)
Someone challenged this as a non beleiver and lost but I cannot recall any details
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Schoolslearninganddevelopment/SchoolLife/DG_10013990
the cost in Lancashire is £4 million, 400 k in Bristol etc
science is not based on facts its based on theories
No it isn't. It's based on evidence.
when did Maths and science get less fact based
knowing lots of maths facts and science facts. Would not make you good at science or a good scientist / mathematician. Knowing what to do with those facts and when are much more important.
Charlie yes religius people are known the world over for not taking the word of God as a fact and not really acting on it iirc it is what defines them as religious people
but that's the point, the 'really religious' are the ones who make the news. The great 'mass' of the 'quite religious' and 'traditionally religious' manage to be dualistic with life and religion.
And no, I'm not trying to mock you. I am genuinely sorry if that's how it came across.
science is not based on facts its based on theoriesNo it isn't. It's based on evidence.
String theory?
Mathematics?
Astrophysics?
The great 'mass' of the 'quite religious' and 'traditionally religious' manage to be dualistic with life and religion.
What they beleive and dont believe at the same time? They follow and they dont?
Re knowledge of course applying facts is just as important as knowing them but great thinkling, a keen mind and limited facts wont help that much see the great Greek philosphers/thinkers views on medicine - people need both facts/knowledge and thinking. Re fact good point re use of word but maths may be a better example honestly 1 + 1 = 2 Russell and Whitehead proved it
EDIT;Charlie we may be in danger here of confusing lack of certainty/clarity with fact. String theory may be disproved/proved by evidence , experiment greater knowledge but creationism cannot becuase it is the word of god
Couldn't be arsed to read much of this thread, but my take on this:
As someone who grew up going to church (C of E), went to a church school (C of E), has been around churchy people most of my life, but has never had any kind of faith / belief, and has relatives (by marriage) who are Catholics....
C of E = Really fairly harmless, well meaning, wooly, nothing too much to be scared of, won't employ mind-bending tactics to ensnare your children.
Roman Catholics = properly ****ed up, attracts really quite odd / unhinged people, wouldn't trust my kids anywhere near them.
FWIW I am playing the system to get my kids into a local, very good C of E funded school. (Hence church attendance forms part, a big part, of the selection criteria)
* No offence intended to any Catholics on here, I know there are a few who have faced totally unwarranted abuse in the past.
What they beleive and dont believe at the same time? They follow and they dont?
Actually, yes.
1 + 1 = 2
not with raindrops it doesn't. Maths is just a model which can be applied in a wide range of situations
Roman Catholics = properly ****ed up, attracts really quite odd / unhinged people, wouldn't trust my kids anywhere near them.
you really have no idea what you are talking about, you realise this sounds like 'Christians who are like me are fine, but those other ones...Dangerous!!'
science is not based on facts its based on theories
No it isn't. It's based on evidence.String theory?
Mathematics?
Astrophysics?
String theory is a hypothesis - it cannot be a theory without the ability to be falsified. Like religion in some ways. (Edit: someone made it up as an idea. That doesn't make it science. If you think so then I have a thesis about flying aardvarks to discuss. The ones I just made up.)
Mathematics: some say it is, some say it isn't but just a servant of science, e.g. [url= http://andrewlias.blogspot.com/2004/08/is-mathematics-science.html ]link[/url].
Astrophysics - of course it is. Without the evidence of planetary bodies being there and moving as they do with the properties they exhibit (e.g. 'evidence') then it wouldn't exist.
you really have no idea what you are talking about, you realise this sounds like 'Christians who are like me are fine, but those other ones...Dangerous!!'
Au contraire, as I have already stated I have almost a lifetime's experience of the church, albeit C of E. Hence I know exactly what I am talking about.
My views on the RC church are based on very little personal experience, hence I am happy to be contradicted by any practising Catholics, or anyone with far more knowledge of the Catholic church than me.
CharlieMungus, perhaps you'd care to reveal the experience that has led to your views on the church - maybe then I'll treat your views / utterings with respect.
Mathematics: some say it is, some say it isn't but just a servant of science,
ok, but what do [i]you[/i] think?
Evidence of phenomena which might be explained by the existence is not the same as evidence of the body.
What do I think? Fair enough.
I think that mathematics is a pure abstract that is not a science but is a tool to describe interrelationships within theories of physical phenomena. It is the only tool that can ever prove anything as it is abstract. You cannot prove any science as it is based upon theories used to match evidence of phenomena. I am trained as a scientist but mathematics is not my branch so my foundations are not certain (but this *is* STW!).
Evidence of phenomena .. statement, while fairly opaque etc. still does not matter. The important part is 'Evidence of....' That's where science starts and the theories are then rolled in for fun.
Roman Catholics = properly ****ed up, attracts really quite odd / unhinged people, wouldn't trust my kids anywhere near them.
My views on the RC church are based on very little personal experience,
is why i said
you really have no idea what you are talking about,
CharlieMungus, perhaps you'd care to reveal the experience that has led to your views on the church - maybe then I'll treat your views / utterings with respect.
Perhaps??? Oooh the suspense, i try to prove my credentials to you then wait in eager anticipation to see if you will treat my views with respect. Oh my oh my. Oooh the tension. Will I make it?? No, I can't do it! The tension is too much. Sorry, I'm not very good under pressure.
'Evidence of....' That's where science starts and the theories are then rolled in for fun.
hmmm, don't you need a theory before you can say what it is evidence of?
I can see the two are closely related, but if I see power spikes as evidence of ghosts, it's not yet science is it?
Oh dear......
If you want an adult conversation (I left the schoolyard many years ago) I'm happy to continue.
If you take the easy way out "I'm so cynical, I'm cleverer than you", carry on.
Charlie - are you going to answer my question or not?
Less of the schoolyard histrionics would be nice.
Right last chance, my last attempt as my last two replies have dissapeared into the ether...
Charlie - if you wish to come up with an adult reply please do so.
yes you cannot say all cathlolics are messed up and not to be trusted it is just silly. Charlie experiences are neither here nor there obviously not all catholics are mental - why you reach this conclusion of over a billion people based on
very little personal experience
is lost on me.
Raindrops ? What do you mean when they join you just get one bigger one equal to the weight of the two parts. or 1 + 1 = 2 semantics or more weight [ see tired but I can still do weak puns]to it than that? Never heard it curious
Why do you think astrophysics has no evidence?
It cannot explain everything-like all any brach of knowledge- but it is clearly factual /obervationally /objectively based - and incomplete
Ah - my posts have appeared :-/
I have made it very clear that my view on the RC church is not based on (much) personal experience.
The usual STW tirades against organised religion are not (apparently) based on any personal experience.
Therefore my view is not invalid, however I am happy to hear any views of people who know far more about the RC church than me. I have yet to hear any.
THE WHITE CAT IS SCARED BY ALL OF THIS 🙁
Charlie - are you going to answer my question or not?
what question?
or 1 + 1 = 2 semantics or more weight
no, not semantics, more about epistemology of mathematics. Some think of mathematics as a set of 'truths'. Other see it as a way of modelling the world. I'm of the second camp. As such, 1+1=2 is only true under some circumstances (as i see it) there are circumstances where it is not true.
"yes you cannot say all cathlolics are messed up and not to be trusted it is just silly."
Yes, a fair point. However most of the predictable STW hysteria whenever religion is mentioned p*sses me off greatly.
I have no problem with people saying religion is a load of old tosh (men in silly hats etc), as I have aleady said I am not a believer myself. However I do have a problem with the regular STW outpouring of vitriol against the church, simply because most of it comes from people who have never been near a church in their lives.
Hence my view of the RC church may be "silly", but that makes it no less valid on this forum, and I am happy to be educated......
What question?
CharlieMungus, perhaps you'd care to reveal the experience that has led to your views on the church - maybe then I'll treat your views / utterings with respect.
I forgot the question mark. Apologies.
Yes, a fair point. However most of the predictable STW hysteria whenever religion is mentioned p*sses me off greatly
Thank God you reduced it with this statement based on very little personal knowledge then
Roman Catholics = properly ****ed up, attracts really quite odd / unhinged people, wouldn't trust my kids anywhere near them
Hence my view of the RC church may be "silly", but that makes it no less valid on this forum
What opinions that are silly and not based on much evidence are no less valid than non silly informed ones ... if you think that there seems littl epoint debating ....except for sport but it is too late for that
Which I quantified. Which bit are you missing?
CharlieMungus, perhaps you'd care to reveal the experience that has led to your views on the church - maybe then I'll treat your views / utterings with respect
No thanks,not really in this kind of conditional discussion. However, i would like to thank you at this stage, i quite like Junkyard but seem to disagree with him quite often, you seem to have allowed us the opportunity to agree.
Nice cop-out. Well done.
Night night.
"In the name of Jesus,in the name of Jesus,we have the victory..."
Nice cop-out. Well done.Night night.
Not a cop-out, just don't see why you can't start by treating someone else's views with respect and further, have no urge to prove myself to you.
science is not based on facts its based on theoriesNo it isn't. It's based on evidence.
What many percieve as science facts are in fact theories which best fit the current evidence.
But the point stands that learning science "facts" is largely pointless in this day and age. Learning how to interpret data and understand and evaluate evidence are the important skills that science teachers should be developing whilst still giving them enough "facts" to understand the science. Science is a process not a body of knowledge
But the point stands that learning science "facts" is largely pointless in this day and age
I understand you need to understand how the process works and what to do with infomration - yes of course we want children /adults who can think for themselves - though I am less sure the state does. However to say it is largely pointless to learn what we already know and understand today makes no sense to me. Should we just teach science methodology and epistemology and wish them well in the world ? Dont teach physics facts and just let them discover Newtons laws of motions for themselves armed with good thinking?
i quite like Junkyard but seem to disagree with him quite often
I believe this is called respect. It is a very rare commodity on here. However for the life of me, I just cant understand why someone as articulate and bright as you are so often wrong 😉
But Newtons Laws of Motion aren't much use by themselves. They need to understand what they can be used for. If they understand that, it doesn't matter if they aren't quite sure what the laws are (Do you know them offhand). They can google them. If I want to work out how fast something would be falling after 1 metre, I'd be better knowing that there is an equation which will let me work it out, rather than know F=ma, but not knowing what it means.
I only got two but i learnt them 25 years ago.
It gets worse the one I did not know was the one you gave me 😳
I see your point but you need a modicum of both knowledge and the ability to apply it. Perhaps in this changing world you can get away with knowing where to look or what button to use on the calculator/computer to get the correct answer - which was always my approach to statistics- but not necessarily know how it works.