Courtship vs. Dating

[Elaine]

Originally posted by Zimfan
When due to lack of time or lack of understanding you can't teach your children certain important secular subjects it IS moral to send them to one who can.

That's not what I meant, Zimfan. I was referring to their still learning morals, and although that would not be the public school's job (God forbid!) the schools at least should not try to teach bad morals, etc.

However, it is irrelavant to our current argument. We are not discussing whether people should pay taxes when part of said taxes may go to something they think is wrong.

If you say so.

In a relative way. Home-schooled children don't have to spend 5 days a week around people who think differently that they do and probably at least put some pressure on them for their beliefs. I've found that having to resist peer pressure causes one to think more carefully about what they believe and makes that belief more resilient. People who have been exposed to fewer different beliefs and have rarely had to defend their own may be as strong or stronger in their convictions but it is a brittle strength more prone to cracking. The people I know who have had the biggest moral falls are people who were private schooled and were always surrounded by people who believed as they did. When they made it to college and were exposed to very different view points they weren't even able to justify their beliefs to themselves, let alone others.

I'm homeschooled and I've been in some theological arguments. Also, the parents should be the ones to teach their children about other religions. If the schools or a child's peers get this job, they will most likely portray false religions in a positive way. Yes, they should be exposed to other beliefs, but only by their parents at first. I might also add that private schools are much different from home schools.

If the parents aren't qualified to help their kids with homework they are not qualified to home-school and shouldn't. If they lack the time, they most likely lack the time to homeschool as well.

I was being slightly sarcastic, if you didn't catch it. However, most parents could make time to homeschool if they really tried.

Then they do just what I have suggested.

No thanks to you..:chuckle:

Different parents have differently ideas about the best way for their children to become educated. I'm happy to live in a country where parents have the option of sending their kids to moderately decent schools where they won't be nearly as indoctrinated as many other countries and to be able to do it for free.

Excuse me, but it's not really free. I know one family who said that they couldn't afford to send their kids to a public school. They said that all the new outfits, school supplies, and other things that were required were just too expensive. :noway:

And I'm saying that despite the fact that public schools can have an influence in a child's moral development the parents still have a greater one.

:bang:

I'm saying that using negative reinforcement by itself is asking your children to become resentful and rebel against the things you forced them to say they believed. Most of the people I know who experienced a severe moral decline did so because they had parents like these. My best friend will not step foot inside a church because his father made him for 16 years. If that father had spent less time punishing my friend and more explaining why he wanted him to go to church that would have been far less likely to happen. Parents like that are as bad as teachers who try to hoist their religious beliefs (or, more often, their lack thereof) on their students by giving them bad grades or attempting to make them answer test questions in a way that contradicts the beliefs of the student.

Please tell me what exactly you mean by "negative reinforcement."

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Elaine
Excuse me, but it's not really free. I know one family who said that they couldn't afford to send their kids to a public school. They said that all the new outfits, school supplies, and other things that were required were just too expensive. :noway:

Not to mention the taxes. It's not free, we just have to pay for it whether we want it or not.

 

[Elaine]

I mentioned that earlier; he said it was off topic.

 

[taoist]

Courtship vs. Dating or Homeschooling vs. Public Schooling? My usual rule is to go with the thread-creator's flow, but it seems Nori has left this thread long ago, and after all, it is in the homeschooling forum.

Elaine and ShadowMaid, I'm happy that you enjoy the opportunity to study with your parents. Neither of you seem to be much harmed by the experience.

There are biases built in to your education that trouble me, however. Of course, I don't expect any secondary education, at home or in public school, to properly cover comparative religions. But it's the misconceptions about science that trouble me most.

No scientist or science teacher would ever mistake evolution for anything other than a theory. An extremely well supported theory, but a theory regardless. "Teaching evolution as fact" is a creationist slur on both science and the scientific method.

It is when homeschoolers attempt to cover science at a secondary school level that the system is most likely to break down. Biology, especially evolutionary theory, is likely to receive short shrift, especially for those whose primary motivation to homeschool is religious.

But over and above this deficit, the average parent, to say nothing about the 50 percent of the population which is necessarily below average, are hopelessly incompetent to cover any of the other sciences typically available in a public school.

Physics, chemistry, geology (though it usually gets called earth science) and mathematics demand specialized instruction. An above average student should be able to make do with independent study, but the benefit of an actual teacher well versed in the topics puts the home schooled at a considerable disadvantage.

Beyond the fact that some parents are incompetent or unable to homeschool, how would you address the fact that some parents are incompetent or unable to parent?

I'm afraid that any way you look at it from the wider perspective of typical American family life, public schools are necessary for the majority of children.

 

[taoist]

As an added note, I might mention that my sister-in-law homeschools all three of my nephews. Fortunately, they've got an uncle who can always be cajoled into doing a bit of math tutoring.

 

[LightSon]

Originally posted by taoist
There are biases built in to your education that trouble me…

There are biases built into most education. Government schools are no different.

Originally posted by taoist
No scientist or science teacher would ever mistake evolution for anything other than a theory. An extremely well supported theory, but a theory regardless. "Teaching evolution as fact" is a creationist slur on both science and the scientific method

That’s a little overstated I think. Your presumption is that evolution is a fact, or at least is a sufficiently “well supported theory”, so much so that it warrants special attention. Otherwise, why did you bring it up?

Originally posted by taoist
It is when homeschoolers attempt to cover science at a secondary school level that the system is most likely to break down.

What are you worried about? Is holding to evolution that important to you? Does this matter in real life?

In my view it does matter. Apparently in your view it matters also, which again, is why you raise the issue.

Take 2 individuals. One believes we were created by God for a higher, eternal purpose. The other believes we evolved from goop via monkeys. (how’s that for a slur?). Evolution presumes no God, no purposes. We are just an accident of time, space and energy.

Which of these individuals will tend to have the most self worth and be most prepared to make good choices in life? In fact, the goopy offspring can’t even really argue there is such a thing as a good choice. What does goo know? If God does not exist, morals are, at best, a consensus.

No wonder people of faith opt out of the (im)moral programming that government schools foist on the populace. Evolution is less scientific and more religious. It is based on a belief which can never be proven. When presented with the choice of selecting between 2 disparate and unprovable premises, I’ll go with the one that is #1 most reasonable, and #2 has credible philosophical support – that is what the Bible affords.

 

[Zimfan]

Originally posted by Elaine
Please tell me what exactly you mean by "negative reinforcement."

I have to go to work in a few minutes so I'll just answer this one for now. Negative reinforcement is when you use only punishments to try to change someone's behavior. Like zapping a mouse every time it goes for the cheese, or hitting someone every time they touch you. It's a little more complicated than that, but that should give you a general idea.

P.S. If you went to a public school you'd have learned the term by now.

 

[taoist]

Lightson, this thread is mostly a place for two wonderful young girls to discuss homeschooling. I don't think it's fair to intrude with a high level debate. The older of the two is 30 years younger than me. Honestly, I spent more time working on my PhD than either of them has spent in school yet.

The main object of my post to ShadowMaid and Elaine was to ask them to consider families less supportive than their own. While I'll answer your main points, I believe it's more proper to refrain from any extended debate on evolution here.

LightSon

There are biases built into most education. Government schools are no different.

Thanks for your comments, LightSon.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement for home schooling there. Bias is not an absolute. It can be measured, and reduced using standard scientific methods, such as peer review. Of course that's much more difficult in a home schooling environment.

That's not to say I've never seen christian methods of peer review, e.g., "Burn the heretic."

:chuckle:

What are you worried about? Is holding to evolution that important to you? Does this matter in real life?

Au contraire. Holding to scientific methods to investigate natural phenomena is important to me. Critical thinking is important to me. Taking a stand against ignorance is important to me.

Evolutionary theory, as with any other scientific pursuit, will undergo continuous modification in pursuit of greater understanding of the natural world, but only if it escapes condemnation as anathema by religious fundamentalists who offer no alternative method for investigating the natural world around us.

In my view it does matter. Apparently in your view it matters also, which again, is why you raise the issue.

In principle, refutation of scientific research by strict interpretation of religious texts is a serious assault against reason. No scientist can avoid feeling defensive when faced with anti-intellectual religious fervor.

Take 2 individuals. One believes we were created by God for a higher, eternal purpose. The other believes we evolved from goop via monkeys. (how’s that for a slur?). Evolution presumes no God, no purposes. We are just an accident of time, space and energy.

Good grief, no!

1. There are any number of evolutionary scientists who consider themselves good christians.
2. Monkeys are acknowledged as a side branch in standard hominid evolutionary charts.
3. From goop? Yup, that's a slur on molecular biologists all right. I suggest you keep that sort of terminology out of any college lecture hall. Professors are often a pretty touchy lot.
4. Belief in God and a divine purpose is irrelevant to evolutionary theory.
5. If we are nothing more than an accident, does that mean we have no ability to choose a noble purpose? I consider myself a counterexample.

Which of these individuals will tend to have the most self worth and be most prepared to make good choices in life? In fact, the goopy offspring can’t even really argue there is such a thing as a good choice. What does goo know? If God does not exist, morals are, at best, a consensus.

Fallacious reasoning. People are not goo. There was a time in your development when you were incapable of reason. Does this imply you must remain incapable?

Consider instead a hypothetical person who has based his morality on the existence of a god who requires the lies promulgated by anti-evolutionary creationists for evidence. When he finds his assumptions proved wrong, will he not then throw away his morals as well?

All the more reason to divorce ethics from literal interpretations which require ignorance of science. The catholic church found a way to survive adoption of the Copernican model of the universe. Christianity, in so far as it upholds ethical and moral beliefs which are independent of the natural origin of species, will survive evolution.

There will come a time when literal creationism is nothing more than an embarassing aberration christians sweep under the rug along with the flat earth of the old testament and the 6,000 year-old-earth of Bishop Ussher.

I challenge you to give me one action you will conduct today which requires an absolute morality. For each example you give me, I will give you ten which require no more than relative ethics.

No wonder people of faith opt out of the (im)moral programming that government schools foist on the populace. Evolution is less scientific and more religious. It is based on a belief which can never be proven. When presented with the choice of selecting between 2 disparate and unprovable premises, I’ll go with the one that is #1 most reasonable, and #2 has credible philosophical support – that is what the Bible affords.

Proving a theory? Oh my. This is hopeless. I can't argue theory with you without a bare minimum of understanding of what the word means.

The bible is scientific? Evolution is religious? The latter is absurd. I have never seen any scientist utter a prayer to his lab equipment. Nor have I ever seen one look up a physical constant in the bible. Did you know that a literal interpretation of the bible would require pi to be exactly equal to three?

Oi vey!

Have a nice day.

 

[Lucky]

taoist,

I remember going to a science symposium at Texas A & M University (College Station) with a group of Advanced Biology and Physics students (public school). During one lecture, we noticed a bunch of half-pints, they had to be middle-schoolers, sitting in the front rows. When the lecture was over, I believe in had to do with biochemistry, the little half-pints started asking to professor all kinds of questions using words I've never even heard of. For a few minutes, it seemed like those half-pints were actually talking to the professor on a similar intelligence level. All the high school seniors were clueless of what they were talking about, getting bored, and started yacking to ourselves. Word got around those half-pint science geeks were homeschoolers. I was like "ohhhh, that explains it!"

 

[taoist]

Lucky8

taoist,

I remember going to a science symposium at Texas A & M University (College Station) with a group of Advanced Biology and Physics students (public school). During one lecture, we noticed a bunch of half-pints, they had to be middle-schoolers, sitting in the front rows. When the lecture was over, I believe in had to do with biochemistry, the little half-pints started asking to professor all kinds of questions using words I've never even heard of. For a few minutes, it seemed like those half-pints were actually talking to the professor on a similar intelligence level. All the high school seniors were clueless of what they were talking about, getting bored, and started yacking to ourselves. Word got around those half-pint science geeks were homeschoolers. I was like "ohhhh, that explains it!"

What on earth were you doing there then, Lucky?

Actually, treating students questions with respect, especially when they're very young, is often quite difficult, but very rewarding. I've participated as a judge in a few AP math contests, and it's great fun, no matter how bizarre some of the things you hear from the contestants. I can think of one simple reason why you might not have recognized some of the terms the geeky middle schoolers were using. They might not have been real terms, but still capable of interpretation by the speaker.

The one area where home school can surpass public school is in freeing precocious students to work at their own pace. I personally think it's almost criminal that programs for the gifted are almost always the first things cut when public education budgets are stressed.

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by taoist
Lucky8 What on earth were you doing there then, Lucky?

You got me! :chuckle: I guess I got lucky.

 

[Elaine]

Originally posted by taoist
Elaine and ShadowMaid, I'm happy that you enjoy the opportunity to study with your parents. Neither of you seem to be much harmed by the experience.

:doh: Which is not surprising.

There are biases built in to your education that trouble me, however. Of course, I don't expect any secondary education, at home or in public school, to properly cover comparative religions.

I'm perfectly satisfied with the way my parents have covered other religions, thank you. I don't want the "whichever's best for you," "all roads lead to heaven" view which seems to be so popular today.

But it's the misconceptions about science that trouble me most. No scientist or science teacher would ever mistake evolution for anything other than a theory.

I, for one, would love to see some real proof of this. And, anyway, even when the teachers recognise it as a theory, it is often taught more as a fact.

An extremely well supported theory, but a theory regardless. "Teaching evolution as fact" is a creationist slur on both science and the scientific method.
It is when homeschoolers attempt to cover science at a secondary school level that the system is most likely to break down. Biology, especially evolutionary theory, is likely to receive short shrift, especially for those whose primary motivation to homeschool is religious.

I've studied both creation and evolution, and found evolution to seem utterly ridiculous. Yes, I am biased. I wouldn't want to approach anything from a completely objective view. Yes, the main reason why I and my sister are homeschooled is religious.

But over and above this deficit, the average parent, to say nothing about the 50 percent of the population which is necessarily below average, are hopelessly incompetent to cover any of the other sciences typically available in a public school.
Where are you getting your statistics? Also, if the parents can read a science textbook, then they are capable of teaching it to their children.

Physics, chemistry, geology (though it usually gets called earth science) and mathematics demand specialized instruction. An above average student should be able to make do with independent study, but the benefit of an actual teacher well versed in the topics puts the home schooled at a considerable disadvantage.

Well, it doesn't put me at a disadvantage; my father has a degree in chemistry and math. I'm not studying geology. Physics ties in pretty closely with math.

Beyond the fact that some parents are incompetent or unable to homeschool, how would you address the fact that some parents are incompetent or unable to parent?

Well, the Bible (that's our Christian holy book, Taoist :chuckle: ), would probably place such children under the care of the church.

I'm afraid that any way you look at it from the wider perspective of typical American family life, public schools are necessary for the majority of children.

That's not the conclusion I have come to.

As an added note, I might mention that my sister-in-law homeschools all three of my nephews. Fortunately, they've got an uncle who can always be cajoled into doing a bit of math tutoring.

Meaning you? Congratulations! :angel:

 

[Elaine]

Originally posted by LightSon
There are biases built into most education. Government schools are no different.


That’s a little overstated I think. Your presumption is that evolution is a fact, or at least is a sufficiently “well supported theory”, so much so that it warrants special attention. Otherwise, why did you bring it up?


What are you worried about? Is holding to evolution that important to you? Does this matter in real life?

In my view it does matter. Apparently in your view it matters also, which again, is why you raise the issue.

Take 2 individuals. One believes we were created by God for a higher, eternal purpose. The other believes we evolved from goop via monkeys. (how’s that for a slur?). Evolution presumes no God, no purposes. We are just an accident of time, space and energy.

Which of these individuals will tend to have the most self worth and be most prepared to make good choices in life? In fact, the goopy offspring can’t even really argue there is such a thing as a good choice. What does goo know? If God does not exist, morals are, at best, a consensus.

No wonder people of faith opt out of the (im)moral programming that government schools foist on the populace. Evolution is less scientific and more religious. It is based on a belief which can never be proven. When presented with the choice of selecting between 2 disparate and unprovable premises, I’ll go with the one that is #1 most reasonable, and #2 has credible philosophical support – that is what the Bible affords.

:thumb: :thumb: Great post, LightSon! If I had the power, I would make it a POTD!

 

[Elaine]

Originally posted by Zimfan
I have to go to work in a few minutes so I'll just answer this one for now. Negative reinforcement is when you use only punishments to try to change someone's behavior. Like zapping a mouse every time it goes for the cheese, or hitting someone every time they touch you. It's a little more complicated than that, but that should give you a general idea.

No, that's not a good way to teach your children.

P.S. If you went to a public school you'd have learned the term by now.

And how to apply it to my fellow-students...:chuckle:

 

[Zimfan]

Originally posted by Elaine
That's not what I meant, Zimfan. I was referring to their still learning morals, and although that would not be the public school's job (God forbid!) the schools at least should not try to teach bad morals, etc.

They do try not to teach bad morals. In fact, unlike parents schools are subject to very stringent standards. They can only teach those morals everyone in society agrees on( e.g. not cheating). If anyone disagrees with school policy on moral grounds and makes a big enough stink it often attracts national attention. Eventually someone will review the policy and a consensus will be reached.

Originally posted by Elaine
If you say so.

I do indeed say so. Now if you had brought up the point Turbo did about them not really being free, that would be different.

Originally posted by Elaine
I'm homeschooled and I've been in some theological arguments. Also, the parents should be the ones to teach their children about other religions. If the schools or a child's peers get this job, they will most likely portray false religions in a positive way. Yes, they should be exposed to other beliefs, but only by their parents at first. I might also add that private schools are much different from home schools.

Schools try to portray all religions in a positive way. They do this because they don't want to have a large affect on the religious views of the students. If they portrayed all religions as negative, they would be promoting atheism. If they portrayed them all as neutral, they'd basically be teaching that it doesn't matter what religion you choose, lthat ittle good or bad would come as a result of your decision. This would also promote atheism in a round about sort of way. By teaching them as mostly positive, children can feel good about whatever religion their family belongs to and the parents can rest a little more assured that the schools won't try to corrupt their children.

I picked on kids who went to private schools because I know far more of them than home-schooled kids and I was a similiar situation. That is, surrounding your kids with children that think as they do morally. One sends a kid to a catholic or baptist school to learn catholic or baptist values and to keep them away from those who have different values. One often home-schools their children for the same reason.

Originally posted by Elaine
I was being slightly sarcastic, if you didn't catch it. However, most parents could make time to homeschool if they really tried.

If you say so. I know mine couldn't.

Originally posted by Elaine
No thanks to you..:chuckle:

If they really did need me to tell them that then they shouldn't be home-schooling their children.

Originally posted by Elaine
Excuse me, but it's not really free. I know one family who said that they couldn't afford to send their kids to a public school. They said that all the new outfits, school supplies, and other things that were required were just too expensive. :noway:

:darwinsm: My parents never payed more than $100-$200 dollars a year for all those things. Do you know what an opportunity cost is? Even assuming the cost of school supplies was less for home-schooled children parents who home-school incur a cost equal to the amount they would have made if they were working during the time they instead spend teaching you. I can't think of a single profession where a parent wouldn't make far more money working during that time than the cost of supplies.

Originally posted by Turbo
Not to mention the taxes. It's not free, we just have to pay for it whether we want it or not.

This is because our society has decided that it is responsible for giving everyone should have a chance at the basic education needed to function in our society. The taxes are very low compared to the expenses and opportunity costs incurred by teaching them yourself. Also, without those schools it would be much harder for your parents to find the textbooks they need to teach you. Good textbooks are a result of the demand for standardization and stringent standards caused by the need of public schools to have the best academic resources possible. Thus, there would be even more costs, in both time and money, for finding good books without public schools.

 

[lucybelle]

I was both homeschooled and I also went to the public school.
After going through two broken engagements-
let me tell you- as the voice of experience-
dating=bad whereas courtship=good.

 

[Zimfan]

Originally posted by LightSon
No wonder people of faith opt out of the (im)moral programming that government schools foist on the populace. Evolution is less scientific and more religious. It is based on a belief which can never be proven. When presented with the choice of selecting between 2 disparate and unprovable premises, I’ll go with the one that is #1 most reasonable, and #2 has credible philosophical support – that is what the Bible affords.

Actually, the common trend in philosophy today is a rather extreme version of deconstructionism. Many philosophers today would argue that existence itself is unprovable and support neither one.

:think: Then again, I've never been too fond of the "I think, therefore I'm not" school of philosophy. It seems rather counterintuitive.

 

[Christine]

Originally posted by taoist
Courtship vs. Dating or Homeschooling vs. Public Schooling? My usual rule is to go with the thread-creator's flow, but it seems Nori has left this thread long ago, and after all, it is in the homeschooling forum.

Elaine and ShadowMaid, I'm happy that you enjoy the opportunity to study with your parents.

Hi, Taoist. I'm Elaine's sister, Christine. I, too, am homeschooled. I am sixteen and a junior. I hope you don't mind my responding.

Neither of you seem to be much harmed by the experience.

Has anyone actually ever been harmed because their parents decided to homeschool them? I know that their are homeschoolers like Andrea Yates that murdered her children, but homeschooling was not what made her do that.

There are biases built in to your education that trouble me, however. Of course, I don't expect any secondary education, at home or in public school, to properly cover comparative religions. But it's the misconceptions about science that trouble me most.

Misconceptions? We get to see both viewpoints, which is more than most public school students get to see.

No scientist or science teacher would ever mistake evolution for anything other than a theory. An extremely well supported theory, but a theory regardless. "Teaching evolution as fact" is a creationist slur on both science and the scientific method.

Really? Do you have any evidence to prove that evolution is not taught as a fact?

It is when homeschoolers attempt to cover science at a secondary school level that the system is most likely to break down. Biology, especially evolutionary theory, is likely to receive short shrift, especially for those whose primary motivation to homeschool is religious.

As my sister stated, we are homeschooled for mainly religious reasons. Yes, we are indeed creationists. However, this doesn't mean that we don't study evolution.

But over and above this deficit, the average parent, to say nothing about the 50 percent of the population which is necessarily below average, are hopelessly incompetent to cover any of the other sciences typically available in a public school.

Most homeschooling parents that do not have a college education are sceptical about teaching their children such subjects as calculus, chemistry, and most of the other harder high school subjects. Fortunately, by the time the child reaches that age, he is able to do a good deal of school work on his own. If his parents still feel unconfortable with teaching whatever this difficult subject is, they might seek the help of a homeschool co-op or a correspondence program.

, chemistry, geology (though it usually gets called earth science) and mathematics demand specialized instruction. An above average student should be able to make do with independent study, but the benefit of an actual teacher well versed in the topics puts the home schooled at a considerable disadvantage.

Again, if Mom or Dad can't help the child out here, a homeschool co-op or a correspondence program would work.

the fact that some parents are incompetent or unable to homeschool, how would you address the fact that some parents are incompetent or unable to parent?

If their parents can't care for them, they would be as good as orphans. The Bible says the it is the church's responsibility to care for orphans. Sadly, most churchs today neglect this responsibilty.

aid that any way you look at it from the wider perspective of typical American family life, public schools are necessary for the majority of children.

I don't think so. I firmly believe any parent that can read can homeschool. If they can't read, they they can learn right along with the child.

 

[Elaine]

Originally posted by taoist
Lightson, this thread is mostly a place for two wonderful young girls to discuss homeschooling. I don't think it's fair to intrude with a high level debate.

Go right ahead, as far as I'm concerned. I just hope Nori doesn't mind us hijacking her thread...:sibbie:

The older of the two is 30 years younger than me. Honestly, I spent more time working on my PhD than either of them has spent in school yet.

I don't know which of us you are referring to, but, as far as I know, ShadowMaid and I are the same age.

 

[Elaine]

Originally posted by Lucky8
taoist,

I remember going to a science symposium at Texas A & M University (College Station) with a group of Advanced Biology and Physics students (public school). During one lecture, we noticed a bunch of half-pints, they had to be middle-schoolers, sitting in the front rows. When the lecture was over, I believe in had to do with biochemistry, the little half-pints started asking to professor all kinds of questions using words I've never even heard of. For a few minutes, it seemed like those half-pints were actually talking to the professor on a similar intelligence level. All the high school seniors were clueless of what they were talking about, getting bored, and started yacking to ourselves. Word got around those half-pint science geeks were homeschoolers. I was like "ohhhh, that explains it!"

:chuckle: