Racial diversity discussion in science classes

from JoeUser Forums

I have been asked by my university to complete the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). The government is curious to know how it compares to other universities.

I was asked: "In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have you done each of the following?"

Then given a list of activities... One of them struck me as downright wrong.

"Included diverse perspectives (different races, religions, genders, political beliefs, etc.) in class discussions or writing assignments"

How exactly would class discussions and writing assignments include discussions of "different races, religions, genders, political beliefs, etc." without actually disrupting the class or the assignment? The only class this could possibility have a place in is a class that specifically focuses on those issues. But the question isn't if I have taken courses about such subjects. They specifically wish to know whether my regular classes included that. It is a safe (and sad) bet that it is somehow considered a good thing is science classes are disrupted for this kind of nonsense.

Of course, this was just the first page. There were many many more times where such nonsense reared its ugly head.

politics
19,001 views 19 replies
DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

Wonder how that'd work in Math...

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Tova7, reply 3
Wonder how that'd work in Math...

2+2=5 is close enough when you use Affirmative action.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

taltamir:

I think you are right ... there is no place for these kinds of discussions in any normal curriculum be it science, math or whatever. They are want to gather this kind of information for some purpose and I do not believe they have good intentions on their minds, to say the least. This just cries out to me for more diversity training to further disrupt the education process.

 

Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top

I thought about this, whether physics change depending on the race of the observer. And it makes sense.

Compare Newton and Einstein. We have an Anglo-Saxon theory of gravity and a Jewish theory of relativity. Both attempt to explain some of the same phenomena, but the Jewish theory is BETTER than the Anglo-Saxon theory. Both theories are usable. Of course, none of the other races offered a usable theory.

You see, this is very important for science.

Only someone ignorant of the importance of the differences between the races would argue that science is about the theories rather than the perspectives of the theorists'.

Call me ignorant.

Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top

Compare Newton and Einstein.

If we do we'll find that Einstein's biography has got to be one of the most lurid in the annuls of science.

We have an Anglo-Saxon theory of gravity and a Jewish theory of relativity.

Besides his sexual escapades, Einstein was plagued by evidence of plagarism and failed to give scientific credit to his wife Mileva, a Serbian, who helped him with his theories. 

Both attempt to explain some of the same phenomena, but the Jewish theory is BETTER than the Anglo-Saxon theory.

One of the biggest myths surrounding Einstein is that he was the inventor of E=mc2. But there are other scientists (Lorentz, Gibbs, Poincare, Hilbert and Boltzmann) who had either developed or employed the formula prior to Einstein. 

 

 

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Leauki, reply 6
I thought about this, whether physics change depending on the race of the observer. And it makes sense.

Compare Newton and Einstein. We have an Anglo-Saxon theory of gravity and a Jewish theory of relativity. Both attempt to explain some of the same phenomena, but the Jewish theory is BETTER than the Anglo-Saxon theory. Both theories are usable. Of course, none of the other races offered a usable theory.

You see, this is very important for science.

Only someone ignorant of the importance of the differences between the races would argue that science is about the theories rather than the perspectives of the theorists'.

Call me ignorant.

You sir, win an internet. Maybe I should bring up this argument in physics class :)

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 7

If we do we'll find that Einstein's biography has got to be one of the most lurid in the annuls of science.

Besides his sexual escapades, Einstein was plagued by evidence of plagarism and failed to give scientific credit to his wife Mileva, a Serbian, who helped him with his theories. 

One of the biggest myths surrounding Einstein is that he was the inventor of E=mc2. But there are other scientists (Lorentz, Gibbs, Poincare, Hilbert and Boltzmann) who had either developed or employed the formula prior to Einstein. 

Still fighting the epic battle between Lula and reality?

 

Reply #10 from Stardock Forums Top

 

Leauki

Einstein...... a Jewish theory of relativity. Both attempt to explain some of the same phenomena, but the Jewish theory is BETTER than the Anglo-Saxon theory. Both theories are usable. Of course, none of the other races offered a usable theory.

One of the biggest myths surrounding Einstein is that he was the inventor of E=mc2. But there are other scientists (Lorentz, Gibbs, Poincare, Hilbert and Boltzmann) who had either developed or employed the formula prior to Einstein.

Leauki

Still fighting the epic battle between Lula and reality?

You can praise Einstein all you want, but what's real is that Einstein wasn't the original discoverer of the theory of relativity.

 

 

 

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 10
 


You can praise Einstein all you want, but what's real is that Einstein wasn't the original discoverer of the theory of relativity.

 

But he was.

Who do you claim "discovered" the theory of relativity? (And how do you "discover" a theory?)

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Leauki, reply 11
Who do you claim "discovered" the theory of relativity? (And how do you "discover" a theory?)

If someone left it on a desert island - and a wrong way Italian using Spanish money stumbles across it? ;)

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 10
You can praise Einstein all you want, but what's real is that Einstein wasn't the original discoverer of the theory of relativity.

Quoting Leauki, reply 11
But he was.

You can insist all you want but your insistence doesn't make it so. 

Quoting Leauki, reply 11
Who do you claim "discovered" the theory of relativity? (And how do you "discover" a theory?)

I already named them...

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 10
One of the biggest myths surrounding Einstein is that he was the inventor of E=mc2. But there are other scientists (Lorentz, Gibbs, Poincare, Hilbert and Boltzmann) who had either developed or employed the formula prior to Einstein.

The media insulated myths about Einstein were busted in 1987 when Helen Dukas and Otto Nathan, the executors of his estate, made his personal papers public. 

We know from several biographies of Einstein such as:

C.J. Bjerkens, "Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist,", 2002. R. Carroll.

"Einstein's E=mc2 "was Italian's idea". The Guardian Nov. 11, 1999. Abraham Pais, "Subtle is the Lord: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein", 1982. Throughout the book, he maintains Einstein's work on relativity contains Lorentz, Gibbs, Poincare, Hilbert and Boltzmann's formulas and principles. 

There's more too and they bust your idea of a Jewish theory of relativity.

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 10
 

[quote who="Leauki"]
Einstein...... a Jewish theory of relativity. Both attempt to explain some of the same phenomena, but the Jewish theory is BETTER than the Anglo-Saxon theory. Both theories are usable. Of course, none of the other races offered a usable theory.


You can praise Einstein all you want, but what's real is that Einstein wasn't the original discoverer of the theory of relativity. [/quote]

That was clearly sarcasm on Leauki's part, meant to parody the "racially liberal approach to science and history" rather then an actual praise of Einstein.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Leauki, reply 6
I thought about this, whether physics change depending on the race of the observer. And it makes sense.

Einstein......a Jewish theory of relativity. Both attempt to explain some of the same phenomena, but the Jewish theory is BETTER than the Anglo-Saxon theory. Both theories are usable. Of course, none of the other races offered a usable theory.

You see, this is very important for science.

Only someone ignorant of the importance of the differences between the races would argue that science is about the theories rather than the perspectives of the theorists'.

Call me ignorant.

Quoting taltamir, reply 14
That was clearly sarcasm on Leauki's part, meant to parody the "racially liberal approach to science and history" rather then an actual praise of Einstein.

Sarcasm? Really?

Doesn't seem to be the way you described it in your post #8.

Quoting taltamir, reply 8
You sir, win an internet. Maybe I should bring up this argument in physics class

But whatever. :rolleyes:

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

In post 8 I was JOKING! I would never violate the sanctity of a science class with something so vile. :)

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

Lula, did you actually read the Guardian article?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/nov/11/rorycarroll

"De Pretto had stumbled on the equation, but not the theory of relativity, while speculating about ether in the life of the universe, said Prof Bartocci. It was republished in 1904 by Veneto's Royal Science Institute, but the equation's significance was not understood."

You seem to confuse here the formula e=mc^2 with the Theory of Special Relativity. Einstein was never celebrated for "discovering" the formula e=mc^2 but for formulating (not "discovering" either) a theory from which this formula could be derived.

The problem with non-scientists is always that they imagine science the wrong way around. It's not about inventing formulas, it's about showing how relevant they are.

The "equation's significance was not understood" indeed, because De Pretto had no theory to explain its significance. An informed guess to get a right formula is a scientific achievement, but it's not as relevant and complete as a theory. (I do know that you have difficulty understand that a "theory" is in the scientific sense.)

Here are a few more people who are confused about the significance of the formula:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t785268/

They also believe that it was Einstein's "discovery" of the formula e=mc^2 that was his achievement. It wasn't.

Here is a short discussion about science and how journalists understand it:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=11135

Notice the hint that the important part is not finding the formula but finding out how to derive it.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

It would also help, Lula, if you read the original article. The idea that ethnicity is significant in science was not mine, as you claim, but the National Survey of Student Engagement's.

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

 

Quoting Leauki, reply 18
The idea that ethnicity is significant in science was not mine, as you claim, but the National Survey of Student Engagement's.

That ethnicity is significant in science may well be the National Survey of Student Engagement's idea, but I said what I said based on your #5 and #6 remarks....that ethnicity is significant in science "makes sense" and "we have a Jewish theory of relativity." [/quote]

Quoting Leauki, reply 17
You seem to confuse here the formula e=mc^2 with the Theory of Special Relativity. Einstein was never celebrated for "discovering" the formula e=mc^2 but for formulating (not "discovering" either) a theory from which this formula could be derived.

 I have not confused anything. I said in my #7 comment that "One of the biggest myths surrounding Einstein is that he was the inventor of E=mc2. But there are other scientists (Lorentz, Gibbs, Poincare, Hilbert and Boltzmann) who had either developed or employed the formula prior to Einstein."

C'mon?  Einstein is most certainly celebrated for "discovering" the formula.

One after another Google search entries support the myth that Einstein established E=mc2.

E = MC2
Albert Einstein developed a theory about the relationship of mass and energy. The formula, E=mc[2], is probably the most famous outcome from Einstein's special theory of relativity.

Why is the equation E=mc2 significant?

The famous equation E=mc2 was established in 1905 by German-born physicist Albert Einstein (1879–1955). (A physicist is a scientist specializing in the interaction between matter and energy.) The equation is significant because it contributed to the development of nuclear energy and the atomic bomb. In the formula E stands for energy, m stands for mass, and c2 is a symbol called a constant factor, in which c stands for the speed of light and 2 means squared (the factor, or number, is multiplied by itself). This equation illustrates the relationship between energy and matter, as well as their exchangeability. In the 1930s scientists used Einstein's formula and discovered that when the atom is split, part of the atom is transformed into particles but that some is also converted into energy.

 

I simply disagree with your claim that we have a Jewish theory of relativity based on the fact that Einstein's work isn't entirely original but rather contains the formulas and principles of many others.

 

.....................................

Quoting Leauki, reply 18
It would also help, Lula, if you read the original article.

I did and on the idea that ethnicity is significant in science, I agree with Taltimer who describes it as "nonsense" and with BoobzTwo when she writes:

Quoting BoobzTwo, reply 5
... there is no place for these kinds of discussions in any normal curriculum be it science, math or whatever. They are want to gather this kind of information for some purpose and I do not believe they have good intentions on their minds, to say the least. This just cries out to me for more diversity training to further disrupt the education process.