Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy
-
@Rhywden said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Gąska said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
I hate repeating myself, but I'm absolutely sure you'll miss this detail if I don't - I'M TALKING ABOUT GENERAL EDUCATION, NOT SPECIAL EDUCATION OF SPECIALISTS WHO NEED TO BE EXPERTS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE DOMAINS.
You have a very weird definition of "general education". And last time I looked, Special Relativity is not taught in school.
12th grade physics in Poland. Obligatory for everyone.
Granted, we have Quantum Mechanics
And we don't. If I were you, at this point I'd call you a liar. But I'm not
but that one does have an impact. Because the way I teach it you'll then be less likely to fall prey to that "electro smog" shit.
It probably has much less to do with quantum physics and more to do with teaching them that electro smog is bullshit. You'd probably have the same effect if you taught that part during electricity and optics classes.
And what you call "useless" others will call "interesting" or "useful".
But how many of them? As I've mentioned, I'm all for high-level specialized education for volunteers. I'm just against everybody's future being determined by how good they are in C++ (yes, we did have general obligatory C++ classes for everyone - though it was more of the teacher's invention than the curriculum). People interested in particular subjects can study them more on their own, or during elective extracurricular classes. For every child that finds baroque art interesting, there's 15 who throw up on any mention of it.
You're not the center of the world.
Nobody is. That's why general education going way too deep into highly specialized topics like DNA replication is bad.
Seems to me like you had a bad experience somewhere and now promptly think that it's the same all over the world. Talk about someone having a big ego.
It's not just me - it's literally everybody I've ever met who attended public schools, whether it's Poland, Germany or USA. I literally never met anyone who said their first 12 years of education wasn't mostly bullshit.
-
@pie_flavor said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Gąska said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Rhywden said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Benjamin-Hall said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Rhywden The thing you quoted was making every student learn all the details. You responded with a total strawman.
Yes, because "literally everyone is forced to know about Michelangelo" in school. That argument itself was already a strawman but you chose to ignore that, right?
How is it a strawman? It's a fact that literally everyone is forced to know about Michelangelo, and other assorted artists. As well as what animals are native to what ecosystems around the planet, how various seas and gulfs in the world are named, and who fought on which side in the Thirty Years War 400 years ago.
I didn't learn any of that. In fact I've never heard of the Thirty Years War.
Yes, we're all aware American education is a joke.
-
@Gąska said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
It probably has much less to do with quantum physics and more to do with teaching them that electro smog is bullshit. You'd probably have the same effect if you taught that part during electricity and optics classes.
That doesn't really work. Try telling anyone that believe some random bullshit that it's bullshit and observe the results.
-
@topspin said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
biology class because it's "just as valid" as evolution
At the point where it's just as valid as biology class, we're dealing with unknowable unknowns.
For example:
"Creationism is true. God started with nothing, invented everything in a virtual world, saw that it was good, and implemented it and all of its history in the active world, including evidence of all interim species required for evolution."
That's non-falsifiable.
It could be true, but it's not worth teaching.
-
@xaade said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
That's non-falsifiable.
It could be true, but it's not worth teaching.
Yes, exactly.
-
@Rhywden To be fair, I think he's just advocating for a wider, shallower education at the general level. Which isn't totally unreasonable. But you are correct as well: the intersections can be useful, so sometimes it's worth going deeper. His complaint is mostly trivia, from the sound of it.
-
@Magus the real problem is, who decides what goes on school curriculums?
At my country the government mandates that. I don't like it this way. Government usually suck at everything.
-
@sockpuppet7 said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Gąska said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
It probably has much less to do with quantum physics and more to do with teaching them that electro smog is bullshit. You'd probably have the same effect if you taught that part during electricity and optics classes.
That doesn't really work. Try telling anyone that believe some random bullshit that it's bullshit and observe the results.
And how exactly quantum mechanics help with that? Note that I said "the same", not "good".
-
@Magus said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
His complaint is mostly trivia, from the sound of it.
To be precise - my complaint is that education IS mostly trivia.
-
@Gąska said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@sockpuppet7 said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Gąska said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
It probably has much less to do with quantum physics and more to do with teaching them that electro smog is bullshit. You'd probably have the same effect if you taught that part during electricity and optics classes.
That doesn't really work. Try telling anyone that believe some random bullshit that it's bullshit and observe the results.
And how exactly quantum mechanics help with that? Note that I said "the same", not "good".
This is Quantum Physics. To fully understand why UV light gives you cancer while microwaves don't, you pretty much need a grounding in QM.
Otherwise we'll just create a Cargo Cult. I've seen that with my brother - he fell prey to one of those guys preaching "free energy through crystal energy" and was quite excited about the experiments working which were detailed in the (expensive) book.
I was then the guy who had to explain to him that he basically recreated the experiment by Luigi Galvani.
Plus, on this very board here we have people who regularly laugh about people being afraid of "chemicals" or similar. That's what you get with your generalistic approach: Cargo Cults.
-
@Rhywden and...?
Also, are you going to ignore the entire rest of our discussion? Because, you know, the QM is the least interesting part of it.
-
@Gąska said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Magus said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
His complaint is mostly trivia, from the sound of it.
To be precise - my complaint is that education IS mostly trivia.
Yes, yes, "trivia". Which is a subjective term which in turn is nothing new from you. You don't like it and thus you want it gone.
Is there some other track on this worn-out "Worst Of" CD?
-
@blakeyrat well, I did kinda leave an unshielded reference to creationism lying around in here. can't claim this was my goal.
-
@Rhywden said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Gąska said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Magus said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
His complaint is mostly trivia, from the sound of it.
To be precise - my complaint is that education IS mostly trivia.
Yes, yes, "trivia". Which is a subjective term
How about "specific facts that are useless for anything except a very very narrow specialization where they're used"? Would you agree with it now?
If you're arguing only the words I'm using, it really looks like you can't find any fault in the actual argument I'm making.
-
@pie_flavor Yeesh, probably never heard of a hammerfor either with that kind of curriculum.
-
@Gąska Seems faulty, the exercise of comprehending knowledge is given no value, and knowledge is not given any potential value without a predicted application?
-
@Gribnit said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Gąska Seems faulty, the exercise of comprehending knowledge is given no value, and knowledge is not given any potential value without a predicted application?
The exercise of comprehending your posts is too hard for me.
-
@Gąska This is consistent with your argument to this point.
-
@Gribnit I don't know what "this" is, so I can't voice my opinion on that.
-
@Gąska The standard meaning didn't work? I was referring to your immediately preceding post. Perhaps try using the most probable working interpretation in general.
-
@Gribnit said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@pie_flavor Yeesh, probably never heard of a hammerfor either with that kind of curriculum.
We were supposed to learn about hammerfor, but the teacher got ligma.
-
@Gribnit said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Gąska The standard meaning didn't work? I was referring to your immediately preceding post.
Now that I know what "this" means, I'm even more confused than before. Maybe the problem is that we have different ideas what "my argument" is?
I can't imagine how someone so bad at communication can be a functioning member of society. I don't mean it as insult - I'm actually in awe.
-
@Gąska Eh, I skip your longer posts most of the time. How much value does your proposal assign to unused knowledge?
-
-
@pie_flavor Yeah the link is breaking down.
-
@Gribnit said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@pie_flavor Yeah the link is breaking down.
what?
-
@Gribnit said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Gąska Eh, I skip your longer posts most of the time. How much value does your proposal assign to unused knowledge?
How's that relevant to the discussion at hand?
-
@Gąska Highly.
-
@Gribnit how so, not how much.
-
@Gąska Your proposal centers on unused vs used knowledge.
-
@Gribnit no, my proposal centers on applicable for majority of people vs. not applicable for majority of people, and making students' lives hell vs. not making their lives hell.
-
@Gąska applicable. measured by whether it is used. or not applicable, measured by whether it is not used. latter as to making lives hell, subjective, discarded. so, now that time has been duly expended, does your proposal place value on unused knowledge? It seems to place value on used knowledge. As far as can be said to be measurable, and notwithstanding that you seem to intend to measure before the event.
Oh my, in my haste to clarify and restate the question I missed that you have already introduced a "majority of people" standard. "simple" seems uncharitable to assume, so, what would constitute a majority?
-
@xaade said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
God started with nothing, invented everything in a virtual world, saw that it was good, and implemented it and all of its history in the active world
Considering the mess the world is in and all the bizarre "features" of nature, I think this highly unlikely. Rather it looks like he's the kind of person who has never heard of QA and insists on doing all his testing in production.
-
@Gąska said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@jmp said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Gąska said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@remi said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Rhywden I know, it's probably fraught with more problems than it solves (given that it wouldn't solve many ;-) ). But I'm sticking to my initial point, that Wikipedia (and other similar projects with far-reaching goals) should somehow recognize that some topics are out of their reach.
I don't mean to sound like a conspiracy theory nut, but just like TV, Wikipedia has become very influential source of "wisdom", so there is much value in controlling the content of Wikipedia and making it cover controversial topics in a particular way. I'm pretty sure Wikipedia owners realize that. Avoiding controversial topics would make it less useful for shaping people's opinions (because you don't need to shape them on non-controversial topics to start with).
Making things a 'controversial opinion' then becomes the way you control the content of wikipedia. Say you're a PR person for some product that causes significant harms and you're trying to avoid regulation - think cigarettes or asbestos.
In a world where Wikipedia covers controversial topics, you try to get your bullshit studies and paid misinformers present on Wikipedia. You know the sort of thing: "Some scientists claim that $PRODUCT causes $ISSUE [1][2][3]. Others disagree [4][5][6].", followed by huge sections on the physical basis and the epidemiology and specific studies and what the US Surgeon General thinks etc.
In a world where Wikipedia doesn't cover controversial topics, you just get it marked controversial in Wikipedia and now the article just says "$PRODUCT is a thing. There is a controversy over its potential to cause $ISSUE [1][2][3]". That's it. Anyone wants further information, they have to find it from other sources, which means there's a nontrivial chance they're your PR source.
This isn't any better and is arguably worse.
It is definitely worse from the persuasion perspective. When people read something on Wikipedia, they're more likely to believe it than when it's somewhere else, similar to how they're going to believe NASA publications more than Youtube videos with yellow subtitles. Covering controversial topics on Wikipedia is more useful for shaping public's opinion than not doing it.
I disagree entirely. Maybe I'm cynical, but in my experience people are far more likely to believe Youtube videos with yellow subtitles or fancy PR campaigns than Wikipedia, NASA publications, or anybody with actual authority in the field.
Maybe if schools gave students a better grounding in scientific subjects, perhaps via a wide-ranging discussion of established scientific principles and the history of how those principles were established, even the ones that seem 'useless' to kids, things would be different. :P
(Of course then you'd have a problem with parents complaining about some of those established principles - evolution, greenhouse effect, etc..)
-
@jmp said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Gąska said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@jmp said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Gąska said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@remi said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Rhywden I know, it's probably fraught with more problems than it solves (given that it wouldn't solve many ;-) ). But I'm sticking to my initial point, that Wikipedia (and other similar projects with far-reaching goals) should somehow recognize that some topics are out of their reach.
I don't mean to sound like a conspiracy theory nut, but just like TV, Wikipedia has become very influential source of "wisdom", so there is much value in controlling the content of Wikipedia and making it cover controversial topics in a particular way. I'm pretty sure Wikipedia owners realize that. Avoiding controversial topics would make it less useful for shaping people's opinions (because you don't need to shape them on non-controversial topics to start with).
Making things a 'controversial opinion' then becomes the way you control the content of wikipedia. Say you're a PR person for some product that causes significant harms and you're trying to avoid regulation - think cigarettes or asbestos.
In a world where Wikipedia covers controversial topics, you try to get your bullshit studies and paid misinformers present on Wikipedia. You know the sort of thing: "Some scientists claim that $PRODUCT causes $ISSUE [1][2][3]. Others disagree [4][5][6].", followed by huge sections on the physical basis and the epidemiology and specific studies and what the US Surgeon General thinks etc.
In a world where Wikipedia doesn't cover controversial topics, you just get it marked controversial in Wikipedia and now the article just says "$PRODUCT is a thing. There is a controversy over its potential to cause $ISSUE [1][2][3]". That's it. Anyone wants further information, they have to find it from other sources, which means there's a nontrivial chance they're your PR source.
This isn't any better and is arguably worse.
It is definitely worse from the persuasion perspective. When people read something on Wikipedia, they're more likely to believe it than when it's somewhere else, similar to how they're going to believe NASA publications more than Youtube videos with yellow subtitles. Covering controversial topics on Wikipedia is more useful for shaping public's opinion than not doing it.
I disagree entirely. Maybe I'm cynical, but in my experience people are far more likely to believe Youtube videos with yellow subtitles or fancy PR campaigns than Wikipedia, NASA publications, or anybody with actual authority in the field.
Maybe if schools gave students a better grounding in scientific subjects, perhaps via a wide-ranging discussion of established scientific principles and the history of how those principles were established, even the ones that seem 'useless' to kids, things would be different. :P
(Of course then you'd have a problem with parents complaining about some of those established principles - evolution, greenhouse effect, etc..)
But there's less problems with basic principles.
No one questions that bacteria can rapidly evolve.
People question the assumption that since evolution is apparent, that everything evolved from primitive life.People don't really question greenhouse gases.
They question that man can emit enough of an effect to drastically alter the climate.The building blocks of scientific theory aren't really under the chopping block. It's the, lacking any other explanation, assumption of how those blocks are put together, and the fact that we can't perform a proper experiment (observation with a control group), and the level of certainty despite not having that proper experiment.
Public education drills into kids the proper form of an experiment. Then you say, "hey, there's no second Earth without humans on it, so why are scientists so sure. There's no way to observe the evolution chain, so why are scientists so sure."
There is a disconnect between the assumption of what must be lacking any evidence to the contrary, and truth (TM). There's a level of confidence in the assumption that doesn't seem logical.
If there was more humility in the discussion, along the lines of, "We don't know, but lacking other information, we see a trend we must act on / consider highly probable." I think they'd find more people willing to go along.
But that's not the language used. The language used is, "settled science", which implies "unquestionable, infallible." And that level of arrogance is what people are having a hard time getting past. So it becomes reasonable to question whether there is bias or motive, because this is contrary to the nature of science itself, being discovery, curiosity, and forever criticizing and questioning.
Under that suspicion, it becomes reasonable to question whether scientists are being persuaded under external influence, and given the political sphere exaggerating to the extremes, it's the number one suspect.
-
@xaade said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@jmp said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Gąska said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@jmp said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Gąska said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@remi said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Rhywden I know, it's probably fraught with more problems than it solves (given that it wouldn't solve many ;-) ). But I'm sticking to my initial point, that Wikipedia (and other similar projects with far-reaching goals) should somehow recognize that some topics are out of their reach.
I don't mean to sound like a conspiracy theory nut, but just like TV, Wikipedia has become very influential source of "wisdom", so there is much value in controlling the content of Wikipedia and making it cover controversial topics in a particular way. I'm pretty sure Wikipedia owners realize that. Avoiding controversial topics would make it less useful for shaping people's opinions (because you don't need to shape them on non-controversial topics to start with).
Making things a 'controversial opinion' then becomes the way you control the content of wikipedia. Say you're a PR person for some product that causes significant harms and you're trying to avoid regulation - think cigarettes or asbestos.
In a world where Wikipedia covers controversial topics, you try to get your bullshit studies and paid misinformers present on Wikipedia. You know the sort of thing: "Some scientists claim that $PRODUCT causes $ISSUE [1][2][3]. Others disagree [4][5][6].", followed by huge sections on the physical basis and the epidemiology and specific studies and what the US Surgeon General thinks etc.
In a world where Wikipedia doesn't cover controversial topics, you just get it marked controversial in Wikipedia and now the article just says "$PRODUCT is a thing. There is a controversy over its potential to cause $ISSUE [1][2][3]". That's it. Anyone wants further information, they have to find it from other sources, which means there's a nontrivial chance they're your PR source.
This isn't any better and is arguably worse.
It is definitely worse from the persuasion perspective. When people read something on Wikipedia, they're more likely to believe it than when it's somewhere else, similar to how they're going to believe NASA publications more than Youtube videos with yellow subtitles. Covering controversial topics on Wikipedia is more useful for shaping public's opinion than not doing it.
I disagree entirely. Maybe I'm cynical, but in my experience people are far more likely to believe Youtube videos with yellow subtitles or fancy PR campaigns than Wikipedia, NASA publications, or anybody with actual authority in the field.
Maybe if schools gave students a better grounding in scientific subjects, perhaps via a wide-ranging discussion of established scientific principles and the history of how those principles were established, even the ones that seem 'useless' to kids, things would be different. :P
(Of course then you'd have a problem with parents complaining about some of those established principles - evolution, greenhouse effect, etc..)
But there's less problems with basic principles.
No one questions that bacteria can rapidly evolve.
People question the assumption that since evolution is apparent, that everything evolved from primitive life.People don't really question greenhouse gases.
They question that man can emit enough of an effect to drastically alter the climate.The building blocks of scientific theory aren't really under the chopping block. It's the, lacking any other explanation, assumption of how those blocks are put together, and the fact that we can't perform a proper experiment (observation with a control group), and the level of certainty despite not having that proper experiment.
Public education drills into kids the proper form of an experiment. Then you say, "hey, there's no second Earth without humans on it, so why are scientists so sure. There's no way to observe the evolution chain, so why are scientists so sure."
There is a disconnect between the assumption of what must be lacking any evidence to the contrary, and truth (TM). There's a level of confidence in the assumption that doesn't seem logical.
If there was more humility in the discussion, along the lines of, "We don't know, but lacking other information, we see a trend we must act on / consider highly probable." I think they'd find more people willing to go along.
But that's not the language used. The language used is, "settled science", which implies "unquestionable, infallible." And that level of arrogance is what people are having a hard time getting past. So it becomes reasonable to question whether there is bias or motive, because this is contrary to the nature of science itself, being discovery, curiosity, and forever criticizing and questioning.
Under that suspicion, it becomes reasonable to question whether scientists are being persuaded under external influence, and given the political sphere exaggerating to the extremes, it's the number one suspect.
I don't really want to get into an argument about global warming or evolution here; not the appropriate forum etc.. Suffice to say I think I disagree with almost every statement you've just made.
-
-
@Gribnit said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Gąska applicable. measured by whether it is used. or not applicable, measured by whether it is not used. latter as to making lives hell, subjective, discarded. so, now that time has been duly expended, does your proposal place value on unused knowledge? It seems to place value on used knowledge. As far as can be said to be measurable, and notwithstanding that you seem to intend to measure before the event.
I can smell the trap you've set up from a mile away. No, I'm not going to drag myself into the argument about subjectiveness of value. Don't even try that again.
Most information is useless to most people most of the time. Almost all information is useful to someone sometime. People should strive to gather as much information that's useful to them as they can. A school should teach as much information that's likely to be useful for a majority of students of that particular school as possible (it's worth noting you can't teach more information than the student can process and remember). Public schools teach general population, so they should focus on information useful for general population (except for groups that are created specifically for students who expressed desire in learning more about a particular subject). Information that's likely to be useless should only be taught if it's done to introduce a new field of study that students might've been previously unaware of.
-
@Gąska said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
Information that's likely to be useless should only be taught if it's done to introduce a new field of study that students might've been previously unaware of.
While I disagree with a lot of what you've said in this thread, there is something here where it seems to me you're arguing for the opposite of your own position: a lot of fields of study are new to students. You complain about having to learn stuff like name of kings (or some other random history trivia) while saying that a general knowledge of history is useful, but how could you introduce history to children who don't know anything about it without such trivia?
Sure, if you got a high school teacher who failed you history because you didn't remember the exact date of birth of a king from centuries ago, that was stupid. But I highly doubt that most eduction systems are like this, most likely at high school level they're more interested in you understanding the broader picture of history (putting the wrong date in your exam copy will loose you marks, but shouldn't fail you -- and as a student if you don't remember that trivia most of the time by high school you can wing it if you have a broader understanding of the topic). At lower levels, when you are just starting to learn the idea that there were kings in the past, but not always, then yeah, you need to learn trivia because that's the only thing you can actually learn at that age and knowledge level.
-
@remi That's the fun part: You need "trivia" to construct a web of knowledge - there's no getting around the fact that if you don't learn by rote what, for example, the formula signs U, I and R stand for, you'll get problems understanding the advanced stuff.
-
@remi said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Gąska said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
Information that's likely to be useless should only be taught if it's done to introduce a new field of study that students might've been previously unaware of.
While I disagree with a lot of what you've said in this thread, there is something here where it seems to me you're arguing for the opposite of your own position: a lot of fields of study are new to students. You complain about having to learn stuff like name of kings (or some other random history trivia) while saying that a general knowledge of history is useful, but how could you introduce history to children who don't know anything about it without such trivia?
By not grading them based on how many names they remember. Talk about all things, but don't go in depth with them. Tell about a war, but not about individual battles (unless they were extremely important on the world scale, like Waterloo). Don't make students memorize exact terms of peace treaties (who cares who owned Lorraine 100 years ago?). Spend more time teaching about cultures in general. When I was in high school, 90% of my study time was spent on memorizing connections between various labels and numbers (kings and their reign times, cities and the years of battles, and so on). This is just about the worst approach you can take if you want to students to learn history.
Sure, if you got a high school teacher who failed you history because you didn't remember the exact date of birth of a king from centuries ago, that was stupid. But I highly doubt that most eduction systems are like this
You focus too much on "forgetting one king doesn't make you fail" and forget about "you have to remember at least 50 of the 100 kings mentioned to pass". Just because forgetting any one piece of
useless triviainformation that aren't applicable anywhere except in one very narrow area of expertise doesn't make you fail the whole year, it doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with a system where you're mostly taughtuseless triviainformation that aren't applicable anywhere except in one very narrow area of expertise.At lower levels, when you are just starting to learn the idea that there were kings in the past, but not always, then yeah, you need to learn trivia because that's the only thing you can actually learn at that age and knowledge level.
Agreed. But some informations are more important than others - like, knowing there was a war is more important than knowing there was a battle. Curricula of all school subjects are overloaded with the latter kind.
-
@Rhywden said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@remi That's the fun part: You need "trivia" to construct a web of knowledge - there's no getting around the fact that if you don't learn by rote what, for example, the formula signs U, I and R stand for, you'll get problems understanding the advanced stuff.
Physics is special, in that a good understanding of it is required to understand how many of the devices we see everyday work. And there's no other way to understand it than through maths. And all areas of physics are related to each other in some way, so it's much harder to take out parts than e.g. with geography. Overall, save for special relativity, I don't really remember being taught anything that's not useful for general population. Although physics teachers could base their grading less on correctness of calculations and more on general understanding of physical processes.
What pains me is that you're going to take my post as an admission that I want school to only teach subjects that I personally like. I didn't say anything like that, but whatever - you've made your mind even before we've started this discussion, and nothing will ever make you consider the mere possibility that I might have some point after all.
-
@Gąska Same goes for pretty much any other subject. Again, it's you who doesn't see the use so you deduce that it's useless for everyone.
-
@Rhywden said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Gąska Same goes for pretty much any other subject.
No, physics really is special in that regard. Nothing in geography depends on knowing the placement of Polish lakes on the map. Nothing in biology depends on knowing human hearing organs. Nothing in chemistry (at high school level) depends on knowing the difference in properties of hexanol and octanol. And so on and so on. You'd be really hard pressed to find something as detached from the rest of study material in physics course.
@Rhywden said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
Again, it's you who doesn't see the use so you deduce that it's useless for everyone.
And you apparently didn't see the post where I've explicitly stated that just about everything is useful to someone, given right circumstances.
-
@Gąska said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
Cue admiral_p complaining about ass pulled numbers.
Hey! If you're going to quote me, at least tag me!
And yeah, you do that ass pulled numbers thingie a lot of the time. It's a bit dumb. Please stop.
And anyway, you're wrong, (I wonder how old you are, because this is the kind of stuff I used to think when I was younger too) because, apart from the fact that you never know what you will need in life, and having school shape you as narrowly as you'd like causes all sorts of issues ("narrow" knowledge, "narrow" mindset, and especially it determines destination, and there's no going back, but you seem to like humans as little robots specialised in their niche
) and no decent teacher is so fussy about dates and stuff (you might get away even with not learning the terminology really), but you also need people to apply themselves even in things they do not necessarily like doing - otherwise you get generations of spoilt brats that will only do what they like and don't want to be challenged - but that's what I think. On the other hand, gratuitously accusing @Rhywden of defending his caste was in extremely poor taste, and that's... well, it's not objective, but there must be some rhetorical fallacy with a Latin name for this.
-
@admiral_p said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
I wonder how old you are
-
@Gąska said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
Nothing in chemistry (at high school level) depends on knowing the difference in properties of hexanol and octanol.
Yeah, that's a rather big fail on your part. Becase there is quite a lot which depends on that difference. But you wouldn't know that, having dismissed it out of hand.
-
@admiral_p said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Gąska said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
Cue admiral_p complaining about ass pulled numbers.
Hey! If you're going to quote me, at least tag me!
Some people hate being tagged in discussions they don't participate in. I'll try to remember you're not one of them.
And yeah, you do that ass pulled numbers thingie a lot of the time. It's a bit dumb. Please stop.
You'd rather me say "vast majority" every time? I mean, it's quite obvious I don't mean to be precise with those percentages.
And anyway, you're wrong, (I wonder how old you are, because this is the kind of stuff I used to think when I was younger too)
I'm pretty sure your younger self didn't think students could use more presentation skills classes.
because, apart from the fact that you never know what you will need in life
Is the school the only point in life where you're able to learn new things? Should we really try to prepare all kids for literally every situation possible, just in case they become rescue cave divers or CNC operators? You might think I'm pulling reductio ad absurdum, but I'm pretty sure there are far more CNC operators than there are paleontologists - and we already allocate many hours to teaching the latter.
and having school shape you as narrowly as you'd like
Bro do you even read my posts? Have you missed the part where I've said schools should cover even broader range of topics than they do now?
but you also need people to apply themselves even in things they do not necessarily like doing
Hmm... I don't remember arguing in favor of only teaching material that the students like. Care to provide a quote on that?
On the other hand, gratuitously accusing @Rhywden of defending his caste was in extremely poor taste
What about treating me as edgy teenager who'd rather if school didn't exist? Is it in good taste?
-
@admiral_p said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@admiral_p said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
I wonder how old you are
Old enough.
-
@Rhywden said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Gąska said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
Nothing in chemistry (at high school level) depends on knowing the difference in properties of hexanol and octanol.
Yeah, that's a rather big fail on your part. Becase there is quite a lot which depends on that difference.
Example? Note the "at high school level". I realize the difference might be quite significant in industrial chemical processes. But at high school level, it's just another bunch of numbers and associated labels to memorize.
It's quite telling you ignored the other two examples I've provided. In fact, your every post focuses on just a tiny fraction of what I say, in a poor attempt to dismiss my entire argument without actually addressing it.
But you wouldn't know that, having dismissed it out of hand.
I wouldn't know because the only person here who knows that refuses to share that knowledge.
Photoelectric effect - Wikipedia
