Right-Wing Tricksters Want to Discredit Academia by Recording Zoom Classes

This might come as a shock to you, but professors specialize in areas and can give advice on how to read information. An expert on a topic shouldn't be allowed to say personal opinions on a matter?

 

No, I am talking about the alarmists. There is a difference. I know there is a gray area. I am talking about the people who keeps saying "in the next 12 years..." as they've said for the past 60 years.

 

So a climatologist?

 

Would a biologist talking about evolution need to talk about the bible when no one in the class brings up Creationism?

 

Well not necessarily because there are lots of different creationist arguments that don't rely on the bible. You know a personal opinion can also be an expert opinion right?

 

No, Alarmists. Are you not understanding that there are people out there preaching doom and gloom while others teach tepid differences between one era of world climate and another era of world climate. This is why in the 70's, alarmists claimed we'd be in a new ice age "in 12 years" while now they say we will all be under water "in 12 years". The moderates say the world changes its average temperatures from one era to another and that there is very little humans have to do with it.

 

If no student brings up creationism, it has nothing to do with teaching evolution.

 

While educating?

Hint I married a BCBA who also taught classes..... ABA is a science. While there is room for some personal opinions here or there the vast majority of the material is factual.

Now go back to ranting about Catholics and Nazis which you seem to do no matter the topic.

 

Oh I understand what you're saying perfectly well. I just don't care because what I actually care about is how you're framing this issue. Now think about this in terms of "facts". Do you see how you politicized what is factually correct and who is factually correct?

And?

Hint: I literally told students I help TA to double check a study talked about in class because the researchers did a two tailed test when their hypothesis called for a one tailed test.

If you've educated or even looked at education policy you can see it's political by nature. The best research is not politicized. If you can't spot an argument from analogy, then I suggest you go over your school books again.

 

False,and misleading. Galileo was prosecuted for agreeing with Copernicus' theory of heliocentrism WITHOUT doing the math.

Many of the great scientists of that era were Catholics. The Catholic Church was the biggest financier of science for hundreds of years. Science would not be as advanced today without its backing.

https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/the-truth-about-galileo-and-his-conflict-with-the-catholic-church

 

And? What's your point?

 

Try less spin, and project the truth.

 

So a political institution prosecuted someone for stating a scientific opinion?

What's this thread about again?

 

The Church wanted what they paid for. They wanted him to prove it. Nothing unusual about that.

How students are being indoctrinated by the left & silenced & punished when they present facts & logic to support their positions in opposition, and it's being recorded.

 

They wanted him to prove he believed in heliocentrism yes. And they got him on the charges anyways. So point mine.

Because that level of fear mongering is needed in order to get elites able to motivate populations to conduct scientific purges that aren't politically easy to get rid of otherwise, and it's the intellectual property of the professor?

 

How is calling out biased opinions "purging science"?

Science is data based and repeatable.

 

If that is not comprehensible, then I think you need to go back to school.

And I did not say a damned thing about research, so I have no idea where that even came from. This thread is not about research, it is about teaching. And I can not say it any more clearly. The instructors have no right to inject their own beliefs, either personal or political.

And I hold this both ways. A professor no more has a right to go on about the evils of abortion, no more than they have the right to go on about a "right to choose". Unless it is a course about the legal issue at hand. It is their job to teach the material, not to pontificate on their beliefs.

Right or Left, Liberal or Conservative, I simply see it as wrong, no matter which side is presented.

And no, "Freedom of Expression" does not apply, that is for your own time, not when you are working for somebody else. Especially when that "somebody else" takes so much government money. Teach the material, leave all the politics at home.

 

I think the term intellectual is inappropriate for this example.

record away students and thanks in advance.

 

Is a p value of .03 statistically significant?

Too late, already did.

Professors share work they're working to get published to a class because it's important to 1.)see that step in the process of getting published, 2.)can still be meaningful to class discussions on a topic. That's their research that can potentially be recorded. An expert on a topic has a right to express their expert opinions. Or another way of looking at it is, why were some articles and books chosen to be discussed, and not other ones? As an undergrad I had to read about continental philosophy on my own. Does that mean authors like Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Ardent, and Habermas aren't worth talking about? Those were opinions on professors about what should be taught.

Neat. What's a fact, or teaching material in a social science?

The reason why college is so expensive is in part because the government has decreased funding for higher education when controlled for inflation.

 

Your question has nothing to do with i posted?

What is S,R,S+ ?

 

If you can't figure out statistical significance, how can you figure out whether or not the results of a study are factual?

Different statistical software. I have R and Stata on my computer.

 

Thank you for admitting you can not answer my question.. See we both can do that.

You just went from Professors speaking to studies would you like to go back to Nazis or maybe purple bunnies? Or perhaps discuss the topic?

 

So you can't figure out whether or not statistical significance is important for determining whether or not something is factual? The argument multiple people have put on this thread is professors need to discuss "facts". But how do you determine what is factual, when you have inductive methodology? Statistical significance is how you determine that, among other methods. That's on topic. If you can't figure that out, then you might just need to go back to school. Don't worry, I can TA you if you need it.

 

Dont push ignorance on to me buddy.. I'm leaving you out to hang.

Stats can be manipulated.

 

Very good! Now, let's talk about that .03. Science has a reproducibility crisis. If the standard is .05, but a push exists to have the standard be .01, can we say the .03 is statistically significant? Think hard about this, if you need to think about arguments from analogy, you can try to run back to that talking point.