Blush Nine

New York, NY, United States

Someone is shy

Blush hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Blush Nine
Posted about 3 years ago
Are the arts (music, dance, visual art, etc.) as important to teach in public schools as mathematics and sciences?
I think the biggest problem with art education is the content, context, methods, and objectives they typically employ. I've been fortunate to have had a few good art, and one good music teacher in the past. The rest have been rather mediocre to terrible. While I doubt not their capacity in their own right, they lack the instructional material and guidance to cultivate it in their pupils. Because of its rather subjective nature, Art requires to some degree an affinity for it. Naive perspectives tell us that everyone can appreciate art, but the real question is at what point does it become appreciably useful or not to students. This is no different than those studying physics. At some point, trying to beat material in to a student's brain becomes detrimental, leaving the student with a complete hatred for the subject and a complete waste of resources. Especially if that student turns out to be a prodigy in some other field of interest. Reflecting on Robinson, "digitizing" answers in to correct and incorrect choices is an unfortunate consequence of those that employ a measurement of success. Robinson addresses an important issue but it is simplistic at best and deals with extremely young ages. If you are a parent that has such a narrow viewpoint you give your children medication for behavioral disturbances, you don't deserve them. Children are vastly volatile characters. They are supposed to be. You lack this understanding, then you were not ready to reproduce. If you are disappointed by your child that does not score high on tests, I suggest next time you go out and buy one that is full matured with pedigrees already accomplished, instead of trying to grow your own. If you insist on growing your own, make a couple dozen and discard the ones that don't succeed. What displeases me about Robinson's lecture is that he needs to speak about this at all. It sickens me to think there's an epidemic of performance worry among parents.
Noface
Blush Nine
Posted about 3 years ago
Are the arts (music, dance, visual art, etc.) as important to teach in public schools as mathematics and sciences?
Should the Arts be pushed more? mathematics & Science pushed less? Is Education okay where is now? The last question is probably the easiest to answer so I will start there. The obvious answer to this is no, even if you say yes. Progress is dependent on improvement. How do we progress any field of study? By challenging it, finding ways to improve it. Why should it be any different for the study of studies. The question really comes down to constraints. In the limited resources of time, money, administration, etc. available, how do we PROPORTION our curriculum? Although Art is obviously important, I would have to argue for Science to be a stronger focus in the years just before getting to college. An ideal composition would be to shift focus during development. All other aspects of natural development occurs in waxing/waning cycles. Why are we so artificially linear in our development of education? For example I think debate, philosophy, psychology would be more helpful in the last year of HS than trying to cram a few more courses of calculus. (1) Critical Thinking: Providing the groundwork for objective perspectives gives a stronger foundation for subjective ones, rather than the reverse. Basing opinions on facts is stronger than basing facts on opinions. Especially in other studies. (2) Practical Application: The application of science & math are obvious not only in general usage. Especially in other studies. (3) Potential Development: Building on both of these, a student can expand in to other areas of science & art more proficiently & broadly, the synergies are stronger. Incorporation of other studies is a systematic & analytic heavy process. But what do I know, I may be completely wrong. Ask a developmental psychologist. Or study renaissance periods of different cultures for a better answer. That's what my science brain tells me. See what I mean? BTW: I became an engineer instead of an architect because not enough art. Answering this is a struggle for me.
Noface
Blush Nine
Posted about 3 years ago
Is there room for God in science (Creationlism vs Evolution)?
(1) Do you believe in one, both or none? Faith is required for one. The other does not require Faith, just evidence. (2) Why do you believe it (them)? See (1) (3) Does your belief(s) prove others wrong? How so? See (1) (4) Is there room for God in science? Or is it unreasonable to mix the two? See (1) Lets be clear. Science is the study of natural causation. Faith is the belief in supernatural causes. These two are completely unrelated. Most of the claims that Creationists have can be answered by searching youtube for Ken Miller Intelligent Design. He did a great job of explaining it all in COURT. The latest claim that creationists make is that our existence is so improbable that it couldn't have happen by random chance. [1] There is still a widespread misconception propagated by creationists that Evolution=RandomChance. This is false. There are plenty of non-creationists/religious sources to properly learn what evolution is. [2] Relatively new argument is the use of probability numbers to calculate some ridiculously low number for the probability for our existence. The fallacy in this calculation lies in the assumption that only this one sequence of events could have resulted in life. We can not calculate the probability of life occurring without knowing what other possibilities there might have been had life emerged differently. In short, we don't know enough about the potential of other interesting ways events might unfold. The number one reason I do not believe in creationism is the proponents lack of honesty. [1] Creationism has now been relabeled as Intelligent Design purely for the purpose of misleading people. The Discovery Institute camouflages the name in order to disassociate religion due to their earlier failure to slip this under the radar that "separation of church and state" legislation would stop. [2] Intelligent Design proponents want to bypass the rigorous scientific peer-review process and inject their agenda directly in to the classroom