[PAUSED] Right of Scientific Literacy

[Elke and Elba]

Privately-funded parochial and/or religious schools. This draft does not exempt government-funded parochial and/or religious schools.

Oh, that?

It's quite easy to answer, then, really.

Because it'd be bloody stupid to tell anyone for that matter, that humans exists without evolution (which is scientifically proven to a large extent), or that the universe exists without the Big Bang at the start (which is, largely proven, too.)

[Auralia]

Because it'd be bloody stupid to tell anyone for that matter, that humans exists without evolution (which is scientifically proven to a large extent), or that the universe exists without the Big Bang at the start (which is, largely proven, too.)

There is a difference between teaching factual inaccuracies and refraining from teaching the natural sciences in contexts where they are not required.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Government-funded theological colleges should be exempted from the requirements of this proposal.

I agree. It simply never occurred to me that any theological college would be government funded. Baby steps.

Further, I would like to ask why the World Assembly should not establish a general right to a science education for each student, rather than micromanaging individual schools.

This is worth considering. I hope to address it one way or the other in the next draft, whenever that may be forthcoming.

[Auralia]

Further, I would like to ask why the World Assembly should not establish a general right to a science education for each student, rather than micromanaging individual schools.

This is worth considering. I hope to address it one way or the other in the next draft, whenever that may be forthcoming.

I strongly prefer this approach. It would permit nations to use non-traditional educational systems while still ensuring that all students receive a good education.

[Bananaistan]

This proposed resolution is a crazy extreme of micromanagement, extremely expensive procedures, a one size fits all approach and undefined RL terms such as grade, primary school, secondary school etc. We know what you mean but it is inconceivable that every single WA member sets out their education system in such fashion.

We'd also ask what do you have against philosophy?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

This proposed resolution is a crazy extreme of micromanagement, extremely expensive procedures, a one size fits all approach and undefined RL terms such as grade, primary school, secondary school etc. We know what you mean but it is inconceivable that every single WA member sets out their education system in such fashion.

So I'm beginning to gather. It's clear this way of thinking about it is a non-starter; I'll need to figure out how to come at it another way.

We'd also ask what do you have against philosophy?

Why nothing, I should think. It's simply that sometimes, scientific research seems to encroach or invade sectors of knowledge that were previously thought to be settled once and for all by religious and/or philosophical statements. This often, though certainly not always, causes strife. We certainly have nothing against religion either, and are doing our utmost to respect all people's beliefs while still allowing students to grasp all they can of the fruits of empirical research.

OOC: I have not a damn thing against philosophy; I majored in it in college, if I have it in for it it's a little late now, no?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Second draft posted.

[Societatis Frigidus]

Best. Draft. Ever.


Thank you.

In full SUPPORT of this motion, because natural sciences rock and kick ass.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Global awareness / request further criticism / tread water in a sea of ludicrousness bump.

[Rotwood]

Global awareness / request further criticism / tread water in a sea of ludicrousness bump.

Jericho laughs "Welcome to the World Assembly!"

[The Scientific States]

I think you know my opinion on this.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Global awareness / request further criticism / tread water in a sea of ludicrousness bump.

And again. Come now, surely some of you have further comments? Unlike some of the more headstrong recent WA ascendants, I don't intend to submit this prematurely... yet it is not maturing at all, due to the total lack of critique.

[Lemonacia]

Supported. Like the concept, it's a big step forward to peaceful coexistance.

[Normlpeople]

Coverage limited to theories published in reputable, peer-reviewed science publications; and the history of scientific theories and practices. Contemporary "theories" relying on speculation or non-replicable results are not eligible to be taught in science classes;

"This is still a sticking point with me. There is a place for alternative theory to be taught, in fact, not teaching alternative theory is not improving minds and creative thinking. As I said before, a lot of theories have fallen to alternative thought over the years. I would rather it be left up to individual school systems to decide what science is to be taught, and when"

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Coverage limited to theories published in reputable, peer-reviewed science publications; and the history of scientific theories and practices. Contemporary "theories" relying on speculation or non-replicable results are not eligible to be taught in science classes;

"This is still a sticking point with me. There is a place for alternative theory to be taught, in fact, not teaching alternative theory is not improving minds and creative thinking. As I said before, a lot of theories have fallen to alternative thought over the years. I would rather it be left up to individual school systems to decide what science is to be taught, and when"

I'd like to try to find wording that blocks out the possibility of teaching a so-called "controversy" where, realistically speaking, there is none. One of the most pernicious and subtle ways that known falsehoods and disproved hypotheses make their way time and again into people's heads is when they are given significant time and attention in reporting or tutelage, creating false equivalence in many students' minds. The fact that many WA nations are at wildly varying levels of sophistication and knowledge makes this even more difficult to avoid while still encouraging open minds and comprehensive curricula. I'm open to suggestions, of course; I'll keep trying to find new language for that part.

[Bananaistan]

Mandates further that publicly funded undergraduate college programs offer a full degree program in, at minimum, each of biology, chemistry, and physics to any student qualified to attend classes.

We are not at all sure what this says. It really needs to be revisited. If the intention and eventual wording is such that all non-science students must also receive instruction in science during their studies for their non-science degree, as was the case in the first draft, we will be unable to support the proposal.

Also, as it stands, with the requirements only applying to publicly funded schools and colleges, we cannot support the proposal. Students in a more capitalist society with privatised education should not be omitted in our opinion.

[Wrapper]

Mandates further that publicly funded undergraduate college programs offer a full degree program in, at minimum, each of biology, chemistry, and physics to any student qualified to attend classes.

What about specialized universities like those in the liberal arts or management? Or schools with a specific subject matter like occupational safety/emergency management? Why should they be forced to offer degrees in those programs? It's one thing to mandate that a minimum standard is met, e.g. classes in introductory biology, basic chemistry, and/or classical mechanics are required to earn a degree, but to mandate that universities must offer certain degrees makes no sense. Anyone who wants a degree in those subjects has thousands of universities to choose from.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Finding this adrift in the great yet teensily-crammed-in mess that is our diplomatic office, we find it agreeable to post an updated draft for the Assembly's ridicule burning-in-effigy hilarious cautionary tale-telling consideration.

Even were the sum total of ambassadors who frequent these chambers to give the green light ( ), we do not intend to submit for some time. Doubtless there are still substantial areas for improvement - notably in 1)c, where Ambassador Clover's point still merits tweaking. I'm not yet sure how to make that part fully satisfactory (see 3rd draft notes for details on that).

[Bears Armed]

2. Mandates further that nations not hinder any academically qualified student's attendance in college- or university-level science programs, foreign or domestic.

In your opinion, does saying that prospective students would have to find the cash to pay for their courses themselves -- because they won't be given be any 'grants' for that purpose at the taxpayers' expense -- count as illegally "hindering" their studies?

[Jarish Inyo]

Opposed. What is being taught at a national level is not an issue for the WA. Education is a national issue.

[Wrapper]

Opposed. What is being taught at a national level is not an issue for the WA. Education is a national issue.

Yeah, there's a shocker.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

2. Mandates further that nations not hinder any academically qualified student's attendance in college- or university-level science programs, foreign or domestic.

In your opinion, does saying that prospective students would have to find the cash to pay for their courses themselves -- because they won't be given be any 'grants' for that purpose at the taxpayers' expense -- count as illegally "hindering" their studies?

No. The resolution is silent as to finances because funding for such education should come from whatever sources it already comes from, which in the particular case of Paragraph 2 depends entirely on the university itself (some being publicly funded, many others requiring students to foot 100% of the bill).

Nations vary so much as to education financing that it would be futile and silly to try to dictate those terms. Obviously ramping up science programs at the ordinary school level will cost; but that's the limit of what governments (or whatever private funding sources) are required to positively contribute.

Not helping that extra step is not hindering it.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Opposed. What is being taught at a national level is not an issue for the WA. Education is a national issue.

I can't feign surprise at your stance on this, Ambassador Nameless, though I do think it's possible you might reconsider. Even if the World Assembly did not have a mandate to make the world a better place, it's indisputably the case that nations with lower education standards generally, and lower knowledge of science in particular, are a strategic risk to their neighbors. Lower education (particularly in the sciences) leads to lower economic health and increased poverty; less confidence in one's own understanding leads to increased membership in predatory religious and personality cults; lower science education means lower ability to improve both one's own lot in life and that of others in society; and if these things spiral badly enough, the nation becomes a failed state, host to all sorts of terrorist groups and generally a risk to its neighbors. Now there are other WA resolutions that prevent the worst of those things coming to pass in any member nation; but this one ought to make fufilling those much easier with a happier, abler, and smarter population.

Note that many nations are already in full compliance with the mandates of this bill; while those who are not will benefit in the long term as their young people become adults with greater basic understanding of the world than previous generations had. The increased economic productivity will more than foot the bill for whatever extra education spending is required; it's simply a matter of time.

[Jarish Inyo]

I disagree with your statement. Nations with so called lower lower education standards are not a strategic risk to their neighbors. Nor does it necessarily lead to lower economic health and increased poverty.

it is not the place of the WA to tell nations what they should teach. If a nation is a theocracy and it's nations schools teach only what it religion believes is true and not science, it is their right. What right does the WA have to tell them that they are wrong?

[Separatist Peoples]

I disagree with your statement. Nations with so called lower lower education standards are not a strategic risk to their neighbors. Nor does it necessarily lead to lower economic health and increased poverty.

it is not the place of the WA to tell nations what they should teach. If a nation is a theocracy and it's nations schools teach only what it religion believes is true and not science, it is their right. What right does the WA have to tell them that they are wrong?

"By virtue of religion being categorically wrong, no doubt. However, I also shudder away from the WA mandating domestic education programs. Were this to take the angle of a promotion instead of a demand, it may see better reception."