Saturday, January 19, 2008
Affects of Teachers on Global Warming
I looked at everyone's global warming post and added up how many believe in it, don't and are not sure. Four people(including me) think that it is true, 6 people are neutral and 12 think that it is just a cycle of nature. On Yunus's blog he stated that "after the class discussion he decided that it is not true." Megan said that "all my life I have been convinced that global warming was real; that is until this year when we started discussing it in class." These statements support my thinking; science teachers(Mr.Voight) change our mind about what we believe in by pressing on their own opinions and stating it like a fact. I don't think that teachers should be able to say their opinion because like I already said it changes kids minds about what they believe in. We should have our own opinions and not be affected by our teachers. One personal example of this was when Mr.Voight said that Al Gore was only going on about global warming for the fame and that he didn't really believe in it. I told this to my brother (Brandon who is a senior) and he said that it was definitley not true. He told me that Al Gore spends all of his time and efforts on helping prevent global warming and that he really does care. Al Gore has researched it and really does believe what he is saying.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
62 comments:
I'm not so sure I agree with you on this one. I think that hearing the opinions of people no matter what their position helps you develop your opinions on the matter and where you stand on the issue. If you hear other peoples opinions you also learn more and learn how to communicate with people whose opinions are different than yours.
Couple of things Katie,
First, good point about teachers hammering you with their opinions. I happen to believe that it is okay with teachers giving you their opinions so they as they make it clear that it's an opinion and don't "punish" students for having different opinions. (I hope I have always made sure that everyone knows my opinions; however, I do know that I can get carried away with the global warming thing but that is becuase you are hearing "opinions" on the other side way more often - not an excuse but a reason)
Second, why are you so inclined to believe your brother when it seems as he has given you just as much "evidence" as I have? (Al Gore probably has researched it - I should say his "people" probably have and told him what to say - but it doesn't translate into his daily life considering he jets all over the world in private airplanes, spends tens of thousands of dollars a month to heat his mansion etc...)
Third, You are absolutely right (maybe this is the same as number 1?), you should be able to form your own opinions. The problem is that very few of us actually do. We listen to what we hear in the media, what our teachers say, what our politicians say and we believe it without question. Our society has to stop doing this. It is crippling us. Perhpas that is one reason we need to learn science too? Anyway, global warming has turned into a big political game, compare it to these presidential campaigns. Do any of the candidates actually say anything worth listening to? I would say no, they always say they're going to "change." How? When? Why? None of these questions get answered because people are satisfied with others telling them what to think.
I hope you feel that it is okay to have your opinions, so long as you can back them up, in my class. I hit the other side of global warming becuase I fear that if I don't, you know won't hear it anywhere else and like Becca said, it is probably a good idea to hear both sides regardless.
THE MOST FRUSTRATING THING FOR ME IS, SCIENCE DOESN'T HAVE SIDES!
People are taking science and twisting it, abusing it, and using it for personal and political game.
I disagree with you. I think that science does have sides. Just because science "proves" something is true doesn't make it true. You once said that scientists take only the evidence that supports their opinion when they try to say that something is true and twist it to support their idea. That means that there is more evidence floating around there that could be compiled to form another side of the argument.
Also, I really do think that Al Gore believes that we should be helping to prevent global warming. Even if he is getting paid and getting a lot of fame from the experience he wouldn't be able to
go around the country speaking so passionatly about something if e didn't really believe in it. Al Gore has dedicated his whole life to this and i really do believe that he knows what he is talking about.
Science is not supposed to have sides. Global warming has sides but global warming, no matter if Al Gore says it's true, is not good science. Science involves taking an objective look (meaning free from bias, opinion, preconceptions, faith, belief, whatever else you want to throw in there) at the data and trying to find logical explanations that fit with everything else we know about our world. I don't deny that Al Gore believes what he is saying. In fact, I'm afraid that Al Gore really, really, really believes what he is saying (which in my opinion, is a load of crap) which makes me worry for Al Gore and our country because many people who can't think for themselves just lap it up like hungry puppies.
How is global warming not science? It is talking about the earth around us which is what science is, exploring and learning about the world around us. Also, how do you know that the people that listen to Al Gore don't really agree with him. If they are "lapping it up like little puppies" like you stated it, they must be agreeing with him.
ok, this is hillarious! "lapping it up like puppies"? That's the best comparison that I have heard for a long time! I also don't think that teachers giving their opnions is a bad thing. (It's lead to some of the more interesting discussions that I've had in school)However, Mr. V can be a forceful (and loud) speaker. Some of us don't follow the science world too closely, and alot of the information on GW is way above our heads. Sure, we should form our own opinions, but try getting high- schoolers to wade through a 92 page report. We are trained to blindly accept that teachers know what they're doing, so when a teacher tells us that something is true, we believe it. When Mr. Sackett told us that GW was true, the class believed that it was true. Now, you're saying its false, and the class is leaning that way. Conincidence? I think not. I think the real problem here is the sheep-like following of authority figures. Mr. V, you said that none of the presidential canidates had anything worthwhile to say. I agree that their promises are vauge, but they're all we have. One of them will win, so pick the best of two evils, or run yourself so you can run the country the way you think that it should be run!
Thanks marta!
I am glad that somebody agrees with me!
just some funny facts bout' good ole al gore; the day he went to give a speech on global warming in New York city was the coldest day ever recorded, and on one occasion his scientists went down to the south pole to record ice levels but they came back because they were too cold.
not saying i dont like him or do like him, just thought that was pretty funny.
I agree with Marta when she said that we are trained to blindly follow whatever a teacher says. I'm glad that we talk about these issues in class because it gives us an opportunity to hear another side. I do think that science has sides and we have to choose what to believe. I probably would never hear another side to the issue if we didn't talk about it in school. I also agree with Mr. Voight about people not thinking for themselves and blindly believing whatever sounds the best.
First of all, wow Mr. Voight you really got worked up about this! I think that it is good to hear others opinions and not to just totally accept it. Also politicians kind of have to be involved in global warming because they are the ones that can cause changes that will be dramatic enough to have an effect on it(If it is happening). Yes, science shouldn't have sides but whenever anyone makes a conclusion there will always be someone opposing it. There is no such thing as everyone agreeing on something on a large scale. Those are just my thoughts.
I think we all had our own opinions and if they changed their minds it because of the new evidence presented to them. I used to be a strong believer in the fact that global worming was caused by humans and as I started getting more information i started changing my mind.
Global Warming doesn't mean that there can't be cold days. It just means that overall the earth is getting warmer. We can't judge our weather and say "it's cold so there is no such thing as global warming" we have to look at all places in the world over a period of time.
The people that changed their minds in Mr.Voight's class didn't change them because of new evidence they learned. They changed them because of what Mr.Voight said which is not evidence, it is an opinion.
Ok I that teachers should be able to discuss their opinions, although they can get in trouble for it, because certain people think that it may cause an effect on a student opposite from what there parents are saying to them, which can make the parents mad. With this global warming thing I believe that the science is biased based on the side of the political spectrum your on.
If someone one went into the presidential office of a country and told their president that the information that they got was inconclusive to what side of global warming the president was on, then they would probably get fired. So what I'm trying to say is that on this issue that the scientific research is biased(which it shouldn't be, because facts aren't biased in the first place), and the scientists that are doing this research is to prove their point no matter if the opposing research is totally irrelevant.
I'm not really sure what your trying to say. Could you make it a little clearer?
some ideas are valid but i think you went a little too far
I agree with both Katie and Mr. Voight. I agree with Katie that teachers do tend to hammer their opinions into our thoughts. Also, I agree that alot of people tend to find only proof that supports their side of the story and their belief. I agree with Mr. Voight that Science shouldn't be two sided. Science is about fact and not about what we believe. Science shouldn't be about what we believe, but what is fact. For example, if I were to set up a chemical reaction, as long as I did the same thing every time, the result would not change regardless of what someone believed something would change. Science is all about facts, not about beliefs. Thats all folks.
Holy Crap! Where to begin?
First of all Katie, There Shouldn't be Sides in Science! Science is about the objective explanation of natural phenomenon. If good science is followed (meaning objective research, free from bias, open to peer review) than it really can't be denied. Granted, this doesn't make it fact. Rarely, do we ever get to pronounce something "true." The best we can do in science is a law (law of gravity). That doesn't mean that a theory isn't right based on all of the evidence we have, we admit that we don't have all the evidence. therefore, The theory of evolution is the best explanation we have for the development of different species. However, global warming is not even a theory. to date, global warming (while being portrayed as a fact, is nothing more than an "idea" that hasn't been subjected to good experimental conditions free from bias.
Now, I know that a cold day when Al Gore speaks is not evidence of the globe not warming, but it is still pretty dang funny.
Now, I never have wanted my students to simply believe me and what I was saying simply becuase I am their teacher. However, that doesn't mean that I can't say my opinions, I have always said that these are my opinions and haven't tried to pass them off as facts. We all need to have an open mind about global warming. I don't have the answers. Half the reason I am so stubborn is to drive the point home that there isn't a consensus on this stuff. Somebody needs to represent the ideas not presented in Main Strem Media.
By the way Marta! I would make a great president! However, the way our country works, only career politicians can run for high office becuase of the ridiculous amount of money. I agree that we have to choose the best of two evils. The problem is, regular guys/girls can't get on a ballot. I want somebody to tell me what they are going to do and stick with it. I don't care what side of the aisle they are on, I just want the truth. If you don't know, say you don't know but tell me that you will listen to who does and put the right people in place to get the job done. Heck, 99% of being a president or CEO or whatever, public or private is listening to others, getting advice, and making the tough decisisions. You don't need original ideas. You just need to be able to get things done. I want a president that will stand up for what he believes in, is a man/woman of his/her word, and ignores the corruption that seems to immediately obsess all who arrive in Washington.
One more thing....It is fricking cold today
Even if you have said that it is your opinion students in the class will still look up to what you say and therefor believe it. Like marta said, last year Mr.Sackett's"opinion" was that global warming is real and everybody believed him. This year you(Mr.Voight) say that your "opinion" is that global warming is not real, it is just a phase and over half the class believes you.
yes, it is very cold today...our bus had no heat this morning..:(. Anyway, David made a good point about both sides having a vaild point. Why can't we listen to what someone says and then make up our own mind? If we all could do this, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. People just need to accept that no matter what topic you pick, there will always be someone who thinks you're wrong. Humanity as a whole will never agree on any one thing. If we understood this, than students could look at all the possible sides and take their pick. As for science not having sides, I see what Mr. V is saying. Science uses proof, so presumably, if you had proof you could say that ___ is possible and if you did good science, then no one could refute it. As for Mr. V being a good president, I agree with some of the things he said. First of all, yes, only career politicians can run and the regular people will never be able to run. The whole honesty thing is good, and though I have a feeling I might disagree with several of his policies if he was president, I can't deny that he would do what he thought was right. I liked the inclusivness of his answer (he/she..ect) Right now, I would be happy with any president who is more honest, literate, upstanding, intelligent, and not so corrupt than our current president/administration. (parties aside)
Well it seems that there has been a lot of conversation on this topic. first of all after i read all of the comments i looked up the dictionary definition of science. There were several definitions but i chose the first one. "a branch of knowlege or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systamatticaly arranged and showing the operation of general laws".
now katie is saying that science has sides. mr.v is saying that science has no sides. Well i would have to say my opinion is that science has no sides. science is something dealing with facts. or anything as close to facts as we can get with our research. each time the topic is researched there is new data and all the ideas about the data can be discussed and compromised to make the best explanation for that particular topic. So technically there would be no sides because all of the data is just another possible explanation for the same thing. now when it comes to global warming mr.voight said that it isnt happening and mr. sackett said it was happening. i think that maybe this is a good thing. Because the students get to hear both "sides". And you never know what people might think. Maybe half the class is thinking global warming isnt happening because after all thses discussions they finally made up thier mind. I think that its ok to change what you believef in. evenif its frequently because after you put all of the evidence together the answer is always changing. We live in a century of tecnology and new advancements so naturally we get info. faster and it will change our minds. So i dont think its actually the teachers opinions that is changing the minds of the students. they are just giving thier view/opinion.
Well i thought that since basically everyone has posted on this i should to, can't stay out of the fun :). I like that teachers express their opinions. It really helps you gather your thoughts and decide what you believe in. I think we are all old enough now to realize that teachers do not know everthing about everything, so when you say that teachers always affect the outcome is kind of false. See, we are old enough to notice when teachers beliefs are total crap, and we can also tell when teachers are fact to back up their beliefs. IF teachers could not share their opinions all at about things then we would basically learn nothing.
Oh yeah, I didn't read all the comments so I don't know if someone already said this stuff, but Al Gore has a giant house, hummers, and god knows what else he does. Sounds like he really cares about the enviornment. Or maybe that is just me.
For all of you who are disagreeing with me about science having sides....
First of all I know that science isn't supposed to have sides but the fact of the matter is that it does. I don't think that you can disagree with me that global warming doesn't have sides or evolution or even the big vbang theory. Mr Voight was saying that global warming isn't "good" science because it is not a law or even a theory. I don't think that he would disagree with me that the THEORY of evolution of the big bang THEORY isn't good science because they are both THEORIES which is apparently better than an "idea". Anyways both of these have sides and since they are "good" science then science does have sides.
i agree with the whole science not having sides thing as stated by mr. voight.
if scientists of influence start picking sides, then what information can we rely on as fact?even if they arent picking sides intentionally, if they have a preconcieved notion, then the research they do will lean in the direction of that notion.
I also agree with Katie on how people are trained to accept the information they are given as true.
Obviously, not everyone can research every topic in debate for themselves, that would be like everyone trying to invent the lightbulb all over again. But I do think that scientists should take the initiative to tell the information honestly and un-altered by belief, so that the rest of us can have acurate information and we can skip all the confusion about things.
by the way, i havent read through all the comments yet, so sorry if i repeated the ideas of others.
Katie, Katie, Katie, I am ready to kick you out of my class! Just kidding, but you are driving me nuts. Let me clear something up. SCIENCE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE "SIDES". Yes, the theory of evolution and the big bang theory have "sides" but not in the scientific community. Lay people pick "sides" for these things but the science community as a whole believes that these two "theories" are the best explanation we have for these events. Let me remind you that a theory in science is a well-substantiated explanation for natural phenomenon based on observations and experimental evidence found in nature. You have to remember that really boring powerpoint presentation back in first trimester, and the public survey we did. People out there think theory means a guess. That is not true in science. Remember how the "people out there" take our words and misuse them so when scientists try to use those same words the public refutes it and pick sides. All I am saying is that global warming is not a well-substantiated natural phenomenon based on evidence found in nature. You could argue that it is, but the scientific community, as a whole, has not sat down in a genuine process of peer review to discuss the research and draw conclusions.
You're right Katie, some of my students will change their mind based on what my opinion is. I can't control this, all I can do is tell you that they are my opinions (the above is not an opinion). I think your frustration should be aimed at people who don't think for themselves, not for the opinion givers. Besides, students do enjoy listening to their teachers' opinions and I think I do a pretty good job of honoring the opinions of others.
Anyway, whether or not global warming is real or whatever, (obviously, there is a disagreement about this), there has not been good science surrounding it and therefore should not be prostheletized in the media (i'm not sure if that is a word). The media and politicians have basically forced "sides" on this issue, where there shouldn't be any.
by the way, I love all of this discussion, keep up the great work, even you Katie!
Just to let you all know my last post was very confusing and I think I said it wrong. So yeah
if science isn't supposed to have sodes MR. voight, then maybe you shouldn't be tellin us your side. Just keep it to yourself because neither "side" has firm evidence to back it up. You're contradicting yourself bv, you're the science teacher, and you are setting a bad example by picking a side in the first place.
-owned-
Subbu that's just it. Him saying how he interprets the FACTS is not a side.
Granted he may portray them in a biasing manner... WE ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO BIAS EACHOTHER.
some people just don't because they happen to not speak their mind.
---un-owned---re-owned---
Ok sorry if my last post was confusing.
Teachers by law really aren't suppose to give their opinions about issues that are political or religious(correct me if I'm wrong Mr. Voight). But I don't mind people giving their opinion as long as they don't shove it down my throat.
With global warming I understand their are two beliefs. Global Warming is out their and it is not. As I said earlier I don't mind people giving their opinions. The only problem with this is that the science is taking sides. To help put this in perspective, I will use a model.
Ok for example, the people's for GW(Global Warming) and NGW(Not-Global Warming) are comparing scientific research the only problem is that the GW evidence is totally irrelevant from the NGW evidence.
GW evidence= Orange/NGW evidence= apple
Your probably thinking but hey, wait, an Orange doesn't equal an Apple?
Exactly!
What I'm getting at is that these scientists need to get together and research the same evidence and perform experiments so an Orange=Orange. Because science should NOT be biased(even though on the issue of global warming it is)
Okay so i've been reading the past comments on this blog. I would say its true Mr.V has strong oppinions about things it's hard not to agree. I saw Al Gore's video "An inconvienent truth"it was truly convincing. I really believed global warming was happening & believed that we should be doing something about it.
When I read this it just made me think twice when Mr.V said that Al gore travels around in his private jet & heat his mansion.
People are very convincing, from birth we look at the world around us slowly learning what is right what is wrong & what others do so we can start figuring out how to live. How else would we form our oppinions unless we have information from others good or bad.Some people are more influential than others. Authority figures especially we want to believe what they are saying is right. Teachers have more knowledge than us, been through more, so who better to believe?
Anyway i think the world is getting to hung up on this idea of Global Warming, basically its just some political issue that no ones sure is or isn't happening. As Mr.V said it's not even a Theory yet! & a theory if i'm right isn't totally fact or proven that it is 100% true.
We're really just avoiding the real problem by arguing & taking sides. I'm pretty sure that the way we live isn't good for the environment. wether or not it affects this so called global warming i can't say but pollution & everything that we're doing is definately not good. I think the world needs to look at the real issue. WE NEED CHANGE. pollution does cause harm, we learned about alternate energy sources last year which was also a big issue wether or not nuclear power should be used. Why would we need alternate energy sources..partly because fossil fuels are being used up, but we want a cleaner environment.
when there was no electricity there wasn't much pollution. Today we couldn't live without electricity. We wouldn't be the people we are without it, we have large houses that need heat, we have many buisnesses that need to run everyday, every person in the entire world that drives to wherever, it all creates pollution so i say stop calling it global warming if we don't even know if its fact or what. focus on living better, do we really need to use all the lights in the house or keep the water running..we all do it but maybe its the little things we need to change such as littering & tossing things into the garbage..it doesn't just disapear it has to go somewhere..so using reusable sources is a good start.
so believe global warming or not our actions do have effects think of it this way: you pollute a lake what happens? the fish die out.. if we pollute our world enough will people die?
I wish we had this blog last year it would've been interesting. I think this is what more teachers need to do. we didn't have this last year & science was actually interesting which is why i came back to mr.v's site to see what the class was doing & I saw this whole blog thing. i think this will definately help students to figure out what they think..not what others tell them to think
-Gina V
i'm not sure who said this, katie maybe? about how when mr.sackett said that global warming was real last year that everyone believed in it, but just for the record i never believed anything he said.
Way to go Subbu! haha
ok, look, the online Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the term side (in relation to our topic) as: "the attitude or activity of one person or group with respect to another" Mr. Voight has a definate attitude towards GW, so he also has a side. I disagree with Marcus, a person's take on the facts is a side. Look at the war. Everyone (in the public) has access to the same information and knows about the same battles, yet some take the facts and say that we're winning and others take the same facts and say that we're losing. They obviously have sides. I fail to see how Mr. Voight's behavior is different.
ok....people should probably do some real research. Al gore owns a small farm and a condo in san fransisco...definitely not a "mansion". infact some of the students at maple grove jr high probably live in larger houses than Al Gore. Al Gore does NOT drive a hummer, on rare occasions he has been driven in a hummer for security reasons(hes the former vice president and he won the general popular vote in 2000, hes pretty important) Al Gore drives a Hybrid Mercury. The private jet is for security reasons. Having him fly on a commercial airline would be an insane security risk. Unlike most executives who do fly a private jet, he at least buys carbon offsets in order to help negate the fuel being burned. Al Gore does not make money on his eco-endeavers, most of his money comes from his extremely smart tech investments. He was an early investor in Google and he sits on the board of directors at Apple. On a different note, personally I find teachers telling Jr. High classes their opinions appalling. Children at that age are EXTREMELY impressionable. I remember how anything any teacher said was instantly assumed to be fact, its not till much later that it become clear to people what was fact and what was opinion.
Just my 2 cents :).
Brandon (katie's older brother)
Thanks Brandon for your 2 cents, but I'm 15, so I hope that by now I can differentiate between fact and opinion.
i think that what brandon said was interesting, but i dont think al gore's moral fiber is the topic of this argument.
Marta- You might be able to tell a fact from an opinion but I think a lot of kids in our grade still automatically think that anything teachers say is true.
Amy- Al Gore was one of the things that I wrote about in my original post so that actually is part of the topic that we are arguing about
this remeinds me of my 6th grade teacher. he was all about preaching peace and telling us how we can change the world. so he made us do this peace project thing about violence on tv shows kids watch. we made a booklet with statistics and stuff and went around for sponcers. but anyway that whole year he was cramming peace and tolerance down our throats and he told us how bush is an idiot and the "real" reason why we went to war in iraq and we all just went along believing what he said and doing what he told us to do. then next year in 7th grade i heard some former classmates talk about it and how they were so glad to be out of his class. i think most of us couldnt stand what he was doing to us and so we just pretended we cared about what he said when in reality we could care less. so yeah not saying mr. v is doing that to us THANK GOD!!!! but just that whole thing on teachers telling the class what they believe reminded me of this.
Cool people are more than wild fans and being a wild fan does not make you cool. I think if you are appalled by teachers sharing your opinions than you obviously lack the confidence and ability to think for yourself. I will continue to express my opinions whether people like it or not. It makes class interesting. And, I am not "punishing" anyone for opposing me.
Al Gore probably does own a small farm near S.F. but he also owns a very large house in Tennessee. People go ahead and make excuses for Al Gore's behavior citing "security risks" but if he really wanted to make an impression than he should practice what he preaches. By the way, how is this utility bill for a "small house in S.F.
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_world&id=5072659
Now, if we actually get back to the heart of the matter. Regardless of the "side" you are on, it is necessary for us to keep an open mind. You might argue that I am being hypocritical here but I really do think an open mind is required, I am willing to listen to all sides even though I am a "skeptic". I am doubting that we will ever have enough evidence to draw any conclusions. Nevertheless, the small steps we can take that some say will "help reduce our impact on global warming" are good things to do but not for global warming but for economic reasons.
Everyone, please go here and check out the definition of scientific theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
couple of more things I forgot to mention... Hey Gina! You're awesome, I hope PCSH is treating you well.
By the way, Al Gore WAS important, whether he is now or not, I am not sure? Just thought I would throw that in there to upset some people.
Food for thought...If I was convinced that Global warming was real and caused by humans(by the way, that is the real sticking point, if it is caused by humans. Because if it isn't, then there probably isn't anything we can do and everything would be in vain, if it is found to be scientifically proven that humans are the cause, than perhaps we should do something about it, i digress) Back to my point, if I was convinced that global warming was in fact real and caused by humans, I wouldn't want Al Gore to be the spokesman, wouldn't you want someone with broader appeal who wasn't so polarizing? Becuase, as I am evidence, when Al Gore says something, there is an immediate knee-jerk reaction to doubt it, Yes, I need to be more open minded, thanks to these blogs, I am learning more about my position and beliefs, I hope you are all experiencing the same thing!
i just read through the larger part of 43 some posts. theres no way i'm not going to post one of my own. but there's so much info on here i don't quite know where to begin.
i guess first off: yes. my opinion changed. but it actually has nothing to do with mr. voight. its odd: i am always sick on those "hey let's talk about global warming days."
I definately agree with the people who said teachers should voice their opinions. [there are too many people to name them all.] everybody has a right to form they're own opinion. opinions, by definition, can't be wrong. i think we learn a lot of really valuable information from other people's opinions. Just because someone is a teacher doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to state theirs. we have that freedom and i think everyone should use it.
and honestly, how is mr. voight stating his opinion different than al gore stating his?
sure al gore researched it, but [i'm assuming. correct me if i'm wrong.] mr voight researched it some too. i don't think he pulls his information out of a hat. so al gore made a movie thing. whoop-de-doo. he's famous or whatever. but he's not a scientist, so i don't think he's the greatest authority on the matter. as long as mr. voight doesn't "punish" people, like he said. and he doesn't seem to be doing that. he argues, but so is everyone else.
crap i forgot what else i was supposed to say.
oh: katie, you made a really good point saying that this issue does have sides. i know it shouldn't, but you're right it does. and at this point its kind of hard to stop it. but that doesn't mean all science topics have developed sides.
and i think that's where i'm going to stop. :)
btw mr. v. when did global warming become such an immediate threat to our existance. i diffinatelly dont remember this much hype back in the early 2000's, then around 2005ish its like "global warming" then it turns into "global warming, we're all going to die". and there are the people who argue whats going to happen, some say the oceans will rise and we'll all drown, some say the oceans will evaporate and we'll become like mars, and others like my science teacher last year say that we'll have a global winter cuz all the water that evaporates due to the heat will turn into clouds that reflect the suns rays back into space. leaving earth a lot like the planet hoth from starwars. so basiclly my question is when did gw star getting all this attention, cuz isnt it suppose to be gradual? the earth cant possibly warm up to the point of no return in a decade.
Sorry Katie, I've got to agree with Mr. Voight on this one (just so he has at least ONE person on his side.)
Science shouldn't have sides. If it does, it really interferes with people doing accurate tests on the subject. Instead, with sides, everyone goes out and hunts for some "information" that will prove their side to be "correct". If there were no sides in global warming, then people would just go out and do honest tests without messing with the numbers afterward. Science is supposed to consist of ONLY facts, which should lead to just one answer. But in the case of global warming, there are two answers?! Think of it like math. Unless you are working in a different base, or in a situation with square roots or something, then for every problem there is one solution. x + 5 = 8. So x = 3, and it cannot equal anything else. Same way in science. Here are our facts, so that points to this solution.
On the other subject, I think teachers should definitely voice their opinion. If a student wants to, they can easily go to a source and research the subject for themselves. If they find any information contradicting what the teacher said, then they should bring it to the attention of the teacher. Students don't have to believe everything they hear, they can look further in to it whenever they want. Besides, for our blog post on global warming, Mr. Voight linked 5 articles: 2 of each side and one neutural. In that case, we didn't even have to look up information ourselves, he already gave it to us, encouraging us to challenge his opinion.
I dont agree with you that teachers change our opinions. last year mr sackett just kept talking and drilling that global warming was real into our heads. i never changed my opinion about it. On my papers i would side with global warming though because, well mr. sackett gives you a better grade if you are on his side. Im just glad im in a class this year where i dont get a different grade because of my opinions.
I have another really great spin off for this conversation but fear I will be wading in too deep. If any of you would like to discuss it with me, I would love to! Great discussion everyone! It is wiping me out now!
For the last time people! I know that science is not "supposed" to have sides but it obviously does. Examples:Big Bang Theory, Theory of Evolution
Mr.Voight now you have to say what the new topic/spin off is because otherwise it is going to bug me.
How exactly does not thinking it is right for teachers to express opinions make you lack the confidence and ability to think for yourself? Just a little confused on that point. Also, I know what the definition of theory is and that was one of my points. If the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory are pretty much thought of as true in the scientific world but they still have sides than doesn't science have sides?
I think yes.
Okay Katie this is what everyone is trying to tell you. Science does not have sides. Scientists agree that the big bang theory is true. It is the COMMUNITY that doesn't agree about science. The less informed agrue about whether or not evolution is true, or whether the big bang happened. Not scientists. They know better.
chika chika yea. i side with amanda. katie u should get out more. maybe like do some research or something before u write anthing else.
i agree with amanda on that. mr. voight you still havent answered my question.
Chika whatever whatever, i actually have researched global warming. I will look up some of the sites if u want and add links. Otherwise I'm not sure wut ur talking about.
Mr.Voight has given up on this blog. Just to let you know.
Sorry I flipped out at you chikachikayea(if you couldn't tell, I did) I am just starting to get pissed off at this because nobody gets what I'm saying and hardly anybody is agreeing with me.
I agree with you Katie so feel better! I don't think that global warming is really there. I think that teachers should leave us students to think what we want to think. SO cheer up! I have joined the force!
Okay, one more shot, nick, i don't know exactly when it started to become a huge deal. I think it started a few years ago when the price of oil started to go up and people needed an excuse to stop burning fossil fuels etc......That is my opinion.
Anyway, I think Amanda hit the nail right on the head Katie when she was explaining to you this whole sides thing. She is absolutely right, the scientific community agrees on evolutiond and the big bang, but society doesn't (remember that whole discussion about how scientists call it a theory and the people "out there" don't believe us becuase they have a different definition for the word?) The fact of the matter is, scientists have had a chance to sit down in a legitimate process of peer review and hammer this thing out, weigh all the evidence objectively. There has been much to influence from overbearing science teachers trying to push their opinions on their students (katie, that was sarcastic right there).
the other spin off I had was the pastor on Sunday giving a sermon about why bad things happen and such and he threw a little barb in there about the "artifically warm oceans and weather." he breezed right through it but in a few words basically said that humans shortsightedness has caused bad things to happen maybe more frequently than normal or they are worse than they otherwise would be. I strongly disagree with this pastor voicing this opinion, not becuase he isn't allowed to share his opinion or I don't respect his decision but i don't think a sermon was the right format. First, we are all passive listeners in a sermon and have no opportunity to challenge this point of view. Second, he of course cited no evidence to back up his claim; third, this little point had no bearing on the larger message; fourth, when coming from a pastor in the middle of the sermon, he carries a certain level of authority that is wrongly placed. What do you all think? I really have to go and grade all of your blogs now.
Holy crap. It's all I can say. War is a good title for this blog.
i think the war is pretty much over. nobodys commented in a while.
VICTORY!!!!!
Post a Comment