= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
lessdazed comments on [Infographic] A reminder as to how far the rationality waterline can climb (at least, for the US). - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Comments (47)
Assume "genetically modified" is the teacher's password to them.
Oh, I'm sure it's very similar to "chemicals". But even allowing for that I find it painful. Mostly because, while I find your statement likely, I strongly wish it weren't true. Furthermore, despite living in a rather conservative state (Arizona) I have never encountered a person with such a paucity of understanding. For this to comprise, then, roughly half of the nation?
... Eh. I should know better, I suppose; just the other day I ran into someone who told me in absolute terms that no only didn't she know what a counterfactual was, she had absolutely no interest in learning about them and went on to assert that it was morally wrong of me to attempt to inform her. Such willful ignorance, then, is what's "painful" to me.
Chances are you met one and didn't know it. My father once asked my (high-school-aged) neighbors how long ago the dinosaurs lived. They said they didn't know but guessed about ten thousand years ago. I was surprised, because I knew it was millions of years ago although I didn't remember exactly how many millions it was (but vaguely remembered the number 65 million in connection with dinosaurs).
To admit my ignorance, I only know the particular '65 million years' number because of Jurassic Park.
When I say "encountered" I include the presence of contextual clues, or topical requirements. Talking about GMOs for example, or why there isn't just one "flu shot", etc.
Evolution and its history are intentionally avoided by teachers in public schools: only about 28% of teachers actually teach to the NRC's recommendations.
Genetics on the other hand... has made its way into television commercials. So this confounds me.
This is the part that surprises me. What argument(s) did she give that telling her what a counterfactual was is wrong? Was it just something along the lines of "that's a useless fact and you're wasting my time", or did she actually think that it would be immoral to know that at all?