Drop class if you dispute man-made climate change

[jimnyc]

‘We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change’

Three professors co-teaching an online course called “Medical Humanities in the Digital Age” at the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs recently told their students via email that man-made climate change is not open for debate, and those who think otherwise have no place in their course.

“The point of departure for this course is based on the scientific premise that human induced climate change is valid and occurring. We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change, nor will the ‘other side’ of the climate change debate be taught or discussed in this course,” states the email, a copy of which was provided to The College Fix by a student in the course.

Signed by the course’s professors Rebecca Laroche, Wendy Haggren and Eileen Skahill, it was sent after several students expressed concern for their success in the course after watching the first online lecture about the impacts of climate change.

“Opening up a debate that 98% of climate scientists unequivocally agree to be a non-debate would detract from the central concerns of environment and health addressed in this course,” the professors’ email continued.

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/28825/

[SassyLady]

Wow ... just when you think that there's nothing else that University professors can do that will be close-minded something like this comes along. Universities are no longer a forum for learning. It's more a forum for being brainwashed.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Wow ... just when you think that there's nothing else that University professors can do that will be close-minded something like this comes along. Universities are no longer a forum for learning. It's more a forum for being brainwashed.

They have been that way for a long time..
Just more freedom taken away.
"We are the Borg", "resistance is futile."

Evil exists in many forms but none more insidious than that which has now befallen this once great nation...--Tyr

[Elessar]

I do not believe in the 100% opinion that made-made climate change is accurate.

Lot's of stuff humans has done since the Industrial Revolution have added to things,
but what these liberal and narrow-minded people tend to forget is that one
spurt from a volcano will exceed just about anything humans do.

There has been climate change since this ball of rock cooled down from a
molten mass.

[Abbey Marie]

I found a photo of one of the Professors:


https://theregulatortoo.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/monkey5.jpg

[Kathianne]

I found a photo of one of the Professors:


https://theregulatortoo.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/monkey5.jpg

I would not be happy if my kids or grandchildren wanted to attend such a university. It's always seemed to me the only way to actually learn anything beyond 5th grade or so, is to be challenged.

I believe that so far, evolution is the most likely explanation of how we got where we are, along with plants and other animals. However, I've read enough-that I was inclined not to accept-that I do see the holes in the theory as it currently is at. I've always believed that God started the whole process, but like our own free will, He allows for changes as time goes on.

By the same token, while I always hold onto my morals, I tend to be a 'your choices are between you and your maker' type of person. Some of that comes from how I was raised, some by education, some just from interacting with many people I don't agree with on some issues, but respect.

I do choose not to have friends that hold morals that are widely different than my own. I can't be friends with someone who would cheat on their spouse or not take care of their kids. Friends are a different category for myself than acquaintances or people I work with.

[Gunny]

Wow ... just when you think that there's nothing else that University professors can do that will be close-minded something like this comes along. Universities are no longer a forum for learning. It's more a forum for being brainwashed.

Yet they call themselves liberal.:rolleyes:

[Elessar]

Yet they call themselves liberal.:rolleyes:

Cough-cough....the term got bastardized years ago.

Now it is worn out and a blanket excuse to act like an immature ass.

[Gunny]

Cough-cough....the term got bastardized years ago.

Now it is worn out and a blanket excuse to act like an immature ass.

I actually resent it. I refuse to acknowledge these NAZIs as "liberal". THEY are the ones running around telling everyone else what to think. The antithesis of "liberal".

[Noir]

It's an awkward one as to 'at what point do you stop the discussion' I remember hearing a lecturer in biological science (I think it was P Z Myers but can't be certain) talking about how he had classes that were almost impossible to teach because of a vocal minority of young earth creationists, and at some point he had to say 'this isn't the class for you'. Which is harmful for both sides, but probably they best outcome for the rest of the students.

[Abbey Marie]

It's an awkward one as to 'at what point do you stop the discussion' I remember hearing a lecturer in biological science (I think it was P Z Myers but can't be certain) talking about how he had classes that were almost impossible to teach because of a vocal minority of young earth creationists, and at some point he had to say 'this isn't the class for you'. Which is harmful for both sides, but probably they best outcome for the rest of the students.

1. Why should discussion about science ever be awkward? Aren't we striving for that grand thing known as scientific truth?

2. Where is the "class for them"? Other than a few minor Christian universities, I gather there isn't much out there for those who question current politically correct mantras. Stories abound about kids being penalized with bad grades for expressing Conservative views, for example.

[Noir]

1. Why should discussion about science ever be awkward? Aren't we striving for that grand thing known as scientific truth?

2. Where is the "class for them"? Other than a few minor Christian universities, I gather there isn't much out there for those who question current politically correct mantras. Stories abound about kids being penalized with bad grades for expressing Conservative views, for example.

Consider a matter not as 'controversial' as evolution or climtae change - rather something like 'is the earth flat' - there was recently a very public debate becuase a musician took to his social networks to inform his followers that the earth was in fact flat, citing his reasons for believing so.

A number of 'popular scientists' like Bill Nye, and Neil Degrasse Tyson etc took to their networks to (comically) prove him wrong...but the debate went on and on and on...at some point they concluded that the musican was not worth being conversed with, this was 'not the conversation for him' because sometimes that's all you can do.

What at a student who stubbornly believes the earth is flat will do when his geography teacher says 'this isn't the class for you' idk, but nor do I overly care, would you?

[Elessar]

A huge responsibility in teaching is to Educate, open people's eyes, and remain neutral
on politics, personal opinions, and conspiracy theories.

This day and age, it is the LIEberals who choose to close minds and steer thought and
opinion in a narrow-minded direction.

[Noir]

A huge responsibility in teaching is to Educate, open people's eyes, and remain neutral
on politics, personal opinions, and conspiracy theories.

This day and age, it is the LIEberals who choose to close minds and steer thought and
opinion in a narrow-minded direction.

There are plenty of topics in which there is no neutrality. For example flats earth theory. A dismissing the premis of a flat earth 'steering thought' and 'narrow minded'?

[Elessar]

There are plenty of topics in which there is no neutrality. For example flats earth theory. A dismissing the premis of a flat earth 'steering thought' and 'narrow minded'?

It is narrow-minded and ignorant. A ship transiting the globe would fall over
the edge if it was a flat earth. An aircraft flying trans-continental who shoot
out into space if it was flat. Just common sense.

Show people the light. There are plenty of proofs that the earth is not flat.
Look at the shots from the orbiting space station. They are not made in some on-line
web site. Look at the shots shown by astronauts prior to the space station.

Explain how latitude and longitude are determined, and how distance is measured over
a globe versus a pie.

Explain how a 'great circle route' over a distance is shorter that a straight line over
a globe.

Flat earth people cannot explain any of these things.

[Kathianne]

It's an awkward one as to 'at what point do you stop the discussion' I remember hearing a lecturer in biological science (I think it was P Z Myers but can't be certain) talking about how he had classes that were almost impossible to teach because of a vocal minority of young earth creationists, and at some point he had to say 'this isn't the class for you'. Which is harmful for both sides, but probably they best outcome for the rest of the students.

Actually the professor easily enough can state that on 'Fridays' for '20' minutes-or the whole period-the class will be open discussion on class related topics. Actually in two of my early university courses Fridays were for just that, most of the profs at the school used Fridays that way, to touch on topics the students were interested in discussing. The only rules were the topics had to be related to the course, (i.e., weren't doing politics in mathematics) and the responses/discussion had to be civil.


1. Why should discussion about science ever be awkward? Aren't we striving for that grand thing known as scientific truth?

2. Where is the "class for them"? Other than a few minor Christian universities, I gather there isn't much out there for those who question current politically correct mantras. Stories abound about kids being penalized with bad grades for expressing Conservative views, for example.

Probably the schools I attended, but I never had a liberal teacher grade me unfairly and I participated quite a lot. (I know, shocking for such a shy person}. :laugh2:

[Noir]

Flat earth people cannot explain any of these things.

and yet they persist, and continue to spout their non-sense, and *you* are the problem if you don't give them the time and audience to continue spouting their non-sense to.
As I said sometimes it's better to cut the cords of discussion and mourn for their loss another time.

[SassyLady]

The best college professor I ever had gave me final grade of B even though all tests, homework and final were As. Of course I was confused and marched into his office to have discussion about the mistake he made. It was my 1st B in college and I wanted it fixed. When he asked me why I thought I deserved an A I told him because everything I've completed for the class received an A. So, all As averages to be an A for the semester.

What he said next forever changed my idea of what an education is all about. He said I was really good at regurgitating the information that was presented in class and research that I had done, however, I was not very good about questioning all that information. I never posited my own theories and, therefore, couldn't tell if I was learning or just memorizing.

I thanked him for opening my eyes and giving me a lot of food for thought.

[Kathianne]

The best college professor I ever had gave me final grade of B even though all tests, homework and final were As. Of course I was confused and marched into his office to have discussion about the mistake he made. It was my 1st B in college and I wanted it fixed. When he asked me why I thought I deserved an A I told him because everything I've completed for the class received an A. So, all As averages to be an A for the semester.

What he said next forever changed my idea of what an education is all about. He said I was really good at regurgitating the information that was presented in class and research that I had done, however, I was not very good about questioning all that information. I never posited my own theories and, therefore, couldn't tell if I was learning or just memorizing.

I thanked him for opening my eyes and giving me a lot of food for thought.

I agree with the professor. My only question would have been why you weren't challenged earlier than the end of semester grade. ;)

[revelarts]

and yet they persist, and continue to spout their non-sense, and *you* are the problem if you don't give them the time and audience to continue spouting their non-sense to.
As I said sometimes it's better to cut the cords of discussion and mourn for their loss another time.


I'd agree with a lot of that.

and seeing as i have a thread called 'science is dogma' I'd go further and say that everyone has a difficult time just looking at the facts.
Human beings are not always very rational, to say the least. Humans conclusions are not always based on the best evidence and logic. A lot of what we "know" is based on what we're taught or believe, not on what can be clearly demonstrated. Taking each person from square one, starting demonstrably with your own experience and senses to all knowledge in each generation is NOT how people are taught. We make a LOT of assumptions and snap judgments and take a lot of mental short cuts, and trust a lot of authorities in various areas.

It seems to me that some IN the sciences take a lot for granted that they've either studied and experimentally confirmed and/or accepted the overall paradigm/color of thought of their discipline. And they by default begin to fit various pieces of evidence into the paradigms and assume they are correct since there are various degrees of apparently confirming evidences.

But each scientific question and discipline has various degrees confirming evidence.
the admission of lower and higher ranges of confirming evidence is what I complain about.
Evidence of cause and effect of Chemical reactions is EXTREMELY HIGH.
Evidence of life on discovered exoplanets EXTREMELY HORRIFICALLY LOW.
in the cases in question
Flat earth has LOW and poor evidence, spherical earth has HIGH and good evidence.
IMO Man Made global warming has low medium to extremely low.

When some say "scientist say" there's often very little acknowledgement of level and kind of "proof" used to come to the conclusions.
And "98% of scientist say" is not real evidence. The evidence IS the evidence.
when scientist try to use their authority, laugh off or dismiss people's questions out of hand they are NOT explaining or doing science they are being rude or indoctrinating. And they are not being cognizant of human's weird thinking or their own. Especially their own (everyone's) tendency to join the dominant crowd... or a crowd of some kind.
'the emperors new clothes' makes a very real point about how we all can, in fact, deny even what's clearly right in front of us. But scientist like to think they have/can avoided the pitfall. However if you look into science philosophy and history classes/writings it's clearly pointed out that they are not somehow exempt.

Everyone needs to try and shake the cobwebs from time to time and really ask the question, 'WHY do i think this' 'Is this really true?' The idea that there are no stupid questions is not one that's seriously tolerated much in any field. And the sciences ...as a knowledge based field... is particularly dismissive of "stupid questions".

At what point to abandon the conversation? well IMO it depends.

when you get into areas outside of clear experimental evidence it seems to me the 1st step in an honest conversation is to state what your "scientific CONCLUSION" is. And then begin to mount the evidence FOR that conclusion. Rather than assume the conclusion defacto or circularly.
For those immersed in a paradigm that's often hard to do.

IMO it has to be real conversation about the evidence and not about "how it's believed by XX%" of the this or that group. Or assertions of how 'of course' this leads to that. "of course" is not evidence it's a speculation. How good it is can only be determined but the amount and kind of evidence brought to support it not the believed 'common sensical' nature of the assertion. Or retreats to what goes in it's place? Demonstrating what's NOT possible is a part of the evidence as well even if there are no "good alternatives".


So yeah.
Where does a scientific conversation end... when assumptions are acknowledged and where the evidence has been presented throughly to support/debunk the various conclusions.

For different people that will be a different places. Humans aren't just rational machines.

[pete311]

It is narrow-minded and ignorant. A ship transiting the globe would fall over
the edge if it was a flat earth. An aircraft flying trans-continental who shoot
out into space if it was flat. Just common sense.

Show people the light. There are plenty of proofs that the earth is not flat.
Look at the shots from the orbiting space station. They are not made in some on-line
web site. Look at the shots shown by astronauts prior to the space station.

Explain how latitude and longitude are determined, and how distance is measured over
a globe versus a pie.

Explain how a 'great circle route' over a distance is shorter that a straight line over
a globe.

Flat earth people cannot explain any of these things.

lol, you think proof stops people from believing in crazy things? btw, nothing is ever proven in science, proofs are in math, science uses evidence that points it to being correct.