[PAUSED] Right of Scientific Literacy

[Jarish Inyo]

Let's not forget that not every nation is on the same technical and scientific level. So, how does one categorizes comprehensive science education will not be the same.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Let's not forget that not every nation is on the same technical and scientific level. So, how does one categorizes comprehensive science education will not be the same.

You'll note that 1)b makes the mandate a narrowly tailored requirement that nations teach the most advanced confirmed science they can:

Coverage of the most recent science available to educators and textbook publishers of a member nation;

...and not some chimera of a standard that would be unattainable to some nations and laughably obsolete to others.

[Jarish Inyo]

That's not how I interpreted that clause. But nice to know that all a government needs to do is restrict science that teachers and textbook publishers have access to.

This is still the WA micromanagement nations. A nations educational system is not an international matter in any form.


How can people to maintain their religious belief, and to educate their children in the faith of their choosing if the WA requires that children are taught science that may be against their religious belief?

[Railana]

This is the kind of resolution the Auralian delegation had in mind when repealing Access to Science in Schools: one that guarantees a science education to students, but without micromanaging individual schools. I'll probably have some further comments after a more in-depth reading, but for now all I have to say is excellent work!

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Sierra Lyricalia]

That's not how I interpreted that clause. But nice to know that all a government needs to do is restrict science that teachers and textbook publishers have access to.

That would be precisely the kind of "artificial hindrance" prohibited by the very next sentence.

How can people to maintain their religious belief, and to educate their children in the faith of their choosing if the WA requires that children are taught science that may be against their religious belief?

These fears are unfounded, as can be seen by the entire rest of the resolution. Nowhere is the assertion made that scientific claims are in any way opposed to religious faith; the resolution goes out of its way to encourage religious education (comparative, rather than in terms of an establishment faith teaching its own catechism, but that's certainly not prohibited); and there's nothing preventing students from attending vocational or home schools. The burden on faith created by this resolution is feathery at worst. Under the terms of CoCR and Freedom of Expression children are already exposed to the ideas of other religious faiths (since under those resolutions religious minorities may not be silenced or banished from the broad swath of public life); the worst ("worst" in scare quotes) this does is introduce one more way to consider and appreciate the vastity of the universe.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

This is the kind of resolution the Auralian delegation had in mind when repealing Access to Science in Schools: one that guarantees a science education to students, but without micromanaging individual schools. I'll probably have some further comments after a more in-depth reading, but for now all I have to say is excellent work!

Thank you! No doubt we're far from finished, but I'm glad of any confirmation that this is on the right track.

[Jarish Inyo]

Restricting science is not necessarily "artificial hindrance". If a nation decides that to classify science as secret or top secret, it is their prerogative.

This proposal prevents people to maintain their religious belief, and to educate their children in the faith of their choosing if the WA requires that children are taught science that may be against their religious belief. People may not want their children learning certain types or all sciences as it would go against their religion. Most parents are going to have to send their children to public schools. After all, not all parents are going to be able to send their children to vocational schools or home school them. Plus this still forces theocracies to teach subjects that goes against their ideologies.

[Separatist Peoples]

Restricting science is not necessarily "artificial hindrance". If a nation decides that to classify science as secret or top secret, it is their prerogative.

This proposal prevents people to maintain their religious belief, and to educate their children in the faith of their choosing if the WA requires that children are taught science that may be against their religious belief. People may not want their children learning certain types or all sciences as it would go against their religion. Most parents are going to have to send their children to public schools. After all, not all parents are going to be able to send their children to vocational schools or home school them. Plus this still forces theocracies to teach subjects that goes against their ideologies.

"Why should parents have the right to indoctrinate children without offering opposing views? Why should parents have the right to hamstring future generations by teaching them flawed dogma and inexact science? If religious education had a practical use, I may be more willing to hear them out, but I've never seen a clergy that offers legitimate degrees in bioengineering. The less of that sort of mumbo-jumbo, the better off we all are."

[Jarish Inyo]

Parents have the right to decide if their children are exposed to opposing views. They have the right to decide what their child is taught. They have the right to say that their children should not be taught evolution or reproductive science. Or any science if that's their belief. Religion is not mumbo-jumbo. For many, it's part of their identity.

There are clergy with legitimate advance degrees in science.

While one attacks parents rights to maintain their religious belief, and to educate their children in the faith of their choosing by refusing certain types or all science, no one has disputed the fact that this would force theocracies to teach subjects that are against their ideology.

[McMasterdonia]

The preamble for this resolution seems unnecessarily long. Really, I think that part should be shortened and that the proposal should get to the point of the draft earlier.

1. Mandates that all school-age children receive comprehensive science education, unless homeschooled or enrolled in schools that teach a narrowly specialized curriculum or vocation. The science curriculum in general schools must cover a representative survey of the natural sciences, and meet the following additional requirements:

This is obviously a very broad clause. What would be considered to be a "narrowly specialized curriculum" would private religious schools fall into this category? In such a situation, it is likely that those schools would continue without the relevant science education that this resolution argues is so important. You would likely see science continued to be taught in such depth in public schools or.. other schools which do not fit into the "narrowly specialized curriculum" category, whatever they may be. It seems to me as though this resolution lacks the bite to actually require scientific education.

For now, I think I am Against this proposal.

[Bananaistan]

Our major concern at the moment is clause 6:

Reiterates explicitly that all specialized-curriculum and/or vocational schools are exempt from teaching science classes or testing students on science topics.

We cannot agree with this. The member nation must retain the right to require any form of school, be it comprehensive, vocational, home-schooling or whatever, to follow national or municipal curricula, if they so wish. Were this to pass, we would be required to allow any sort of nut teach children any sort of nutse ideas once it's not being done in the mainstream schools.

OOC: I'm uneasy with the usage of the term "vocational school" in the proposal. It can mean different things to different people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocational_school#Ireland

[Separatist Peoples]

Parents have the right to decide if their children are exposed to opposing views. They have the right to decide what their child is taught. They have the right to say that their children should not be taught evolution or reproductive science. Or any science if that's their belief. Religion is not mumbo-jumbo. For many, it's part of their identity.

There are clergy with legitimate advance degrees in science.

While one attacks parents rights to maintain their religious belief, and to educate their children in the faith of their choosing by refusing certain types or all science, no one has disputed the fact that this would force theocracies to teach subjects that are against their ideology.

"Back to the whole bit wherein you state something contrary to the argument and back it up with exactly nothing. That this would force ideologies to allow alternatives to their own misguided superstition is plenty reason to support this."

[The Dark Star Republic]

The preamble for this resolution seems unnecessarily long. Really, I think that part should be shortened and that the proposal should get to the point of the draft earlier.

"Agreed. This reads like a love poem, not an article of international law. Yet at the same time, the preamble doesn't really explain why A Promotion of Basic Education and Freedom to Read and Learn don't already cover this adequately.

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

"Maybe I'm being overly literal, but people are sometimes punished for certain cybercrimes (hacking, data privacy violations, child pornography) by being prohibited from accessing computer equipment for a certain period of time. Such people would therefore not be allowed to take higher education courses involving computer access.

4. Maintains silence on every other possible form of religious and philosophical instruction outside of science classes.

"The WA has urged its member states to 'create or support education programs in ethnic, racial, and cultural diversity', so I'm not sure that it can maintain silence on this point.

"We're not very supportive, to be honest, but we'll try to provide more comments if this is going ahead."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern to the Dark Star WA Office

[Jarish Inyo]

Parents have the right to decide if their children are exposed to opposing views. They have the right to decide what their child is taught. They have the right to say that their children should not be taught evolution or reproductive science. Or any science if that's their belief. Religion is not mumbo-jumbo. For many, it's part of their identity.

There are clergy with legitimate advance degrees in science.

While one attacks parents rights to maintain their religious belief, and to educate their children in the faith of their choosing by refusing certain types or all science, no one has disputed the fact that this would force theocracies to teach subjects that are against their ideology.

"Back to the whole bit wherein you state something contrary to the argument and back it up with exactly nothing. That this would force ideologies to allow alternatives to their own misguided superstition is plenty reason to support this."

I haven't stated anything to the the contrary. Parents have the right to decide what their children are exposed to. The WA does not have the right to force people or governments to give up their beliefs or ideologies. That is exactly what this proposal is trying to do.

Ideologies should not be forced to allow alternatives to their faith and teachings.

Separatist Peoples, you belittle peoples beliefs by calling them mumbo-jumbo or misguided superstition. That is not plenty of reason to support this. It's small minded of you to just dismiss peoples rights just because you think that their beliefs are mumbo-jumbo or misguided superstition.

I have not stated anything contrary to the argument. Plus, I've backed it up with the same amount of evidence that you have for your assertions. I've not used RL examples. Now, I can name a few clergy that have made contributions to science if you like.

[Separatist Peoples]

I haven't stated anything to the the contrary. Parents have the right to decide what their children are exposed to. The WA does not have the right to force people or governments to give up their beliefs or ideologies. That is exactly what this proposal is trying to do.

Ideologies should not be forced to allow alternatives to their faith and teachings.

Separatist Peoples, you belittle peoples beliefs by calling them mumbo-jumbo or misguided superstition. That is not plenty of reason to support this. It's small minded of you to just dismiss peoples rights just because you think that their beliefs are mumbo-jumbo or misguided superstition.

I have not stated anything contrary to the argument. Plus, I've backed it up with the same amount of evidence that you have for your assertions. I've not used RL examples. Now, I can name a few clergy that have made contributions to science if you like.

“Wait, its small minded of me to dismiss other people’s beliefs…and yet you oppose a proposal that prevents nations from doing exactly that by walling off all other educational options during a critical phase in children’s’ education? The hypocrisy boggles the mind, ambassador Nameless.

“This isn’t impinging on anybody’s ability to practice their belief. Simply requiring they are exposed to other beliefs. Forcing children, who have no recourse and are yet easily impressionable, into ignorance of all other considerations of the world around them during their most formative years is an active detriment to their educational enrichment and future abilities, ambassador, and while I’m as leery as you are at the prospect of allowing the Festering Snakepit to get its grubby fingers into C.D.S.P. educational policy, it’s worth it, in my mind, to stamp out this level of indoctrinated bullshit. This path offers options. The alternative does not, necessarily, offer any. You’re welcome to hold an opposing view, but it bears noting that my vote is determined by my opinion, ambassador, and not yours.

“As to your debating rhetoric, when I say you state something to the contrary, ambassador, I mean that you do exactly this. I make a claim, as before, and then you state the exact opposite, often, as in this case, by misinterpreting the resolution. It’s tiresome, and I’m not going to play along anymore.”

[Jarish Inyo]

No, this proposal doesn't prevent the dismissal of others beliefs. It encourages it. I have not misinterpreting this resolution. It requires theocratic governments, or any government, to teach subjects against their ideology. It forces parents to let their children be exposed to subjects that they do not wish. No one should be required to be exposed to other beliefs. It is an ideological ban.

The WA has no idea what the students of a particular nation need to learn. Biology, chemistry, and physics is not something that children need to learn. Neither is other religions and philosophy. If anything, students need to learn 'real life' skills that they would actually used in their everyday life once they are out of school.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Thank you all for commenting. We don't have the fourth draft available quite yet, but I hope to assuage some concerns here before posting it.

1. Mandates that all school-age children receive comprehensive science education, unless homeschooled or enrolled in schools that teach a narrowly specialized curriculum or vocation. The science curriculum in general schools must cover a representative survey of the natural sciences, and meet the following additional requirements:

This is obviously a very broad clause. What would be considered to be a "narrowly specialized curriculum" would private religious schools fall into this category? In such a situation, it is likely that those schools would continue without the relevant science education that this resolution argues is so important. You would likely see science continued to be taught in such depth in public schools or.. other schools which do not fit into the "narrowly specialized curriculum" category, whatever they may be. It seems to me as though this resolution lacks the bite to actually require scientific education.

I don't actually see the loophole you're trying to show me, Ambassador. If a school counts as teaching only a "very specialized curriculum" by virtue solely of its private funding and religious curriculum, then I would expect it to be specifically a seminary or other divinity school, devoted exclusively to teaching religious belief, missionary life, rhetorical techniques, and other skills necessary specifically for becoming a minister/priest/pastor/rabbi/shaman/poobah/wizard/etc. Otherwise, it would be subject to these requirements. Parents who pay to have their children attend a top-notch school for general education purposes surely ought to expect the best possible schooling for their ₦anotech gram-hours; and I don't see how that doesn't include scientific education. If you have a phrasing fix to tighten that up, I'm all ears, but I rather considered "narrowly specialized curriculum or vocation" to be inclusive of schools fitting those words' particular essence and not much more.

Our major concern at the moment is clause 6:

Reiterates explicitly that all specialized-curriculum and/or vocational schools are exempt from teaching science classes or testing students on science topics.

We cannot agree with this. The member nation must retain the right to require any form of school, be it comprehensive, vocational, home-schooling or whatever, to follow national or municipal curricula, if they so wish. Were this to pass, we would be required to allow any sort of nut teach children any sort of nutse ideas once it's not being done in the mainstream schools.

I actually share your concerns as to the exceptions carved out herein, Mr. Hornwood; I can only say that our policy is to get a scientific education requirement reinstated in WA nations' mandate; and that we noted much of the support for repealing GAR #48 was rooted in its perceived overbroadness with regard to what type of institution was required to actually carry out that mandate. I'll see if we can float a test balloon in the next draft by letting Clause 1 carry that whole burden; but barring a massive show of support from certain sectors of the WA, I doubt we can remove it entirely.

OOC: I'm uneasy with the usage of the term "vocational school" in the proposal. It can mean different things to different people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocational_school#Ireland

Thanks for pointing that out. "Trade/technical" gets at what I'm going for a little better, I think. Will update for next draft.

The preamble for this resolution seems unnecessarily long. Really, I think that part should be shortened and that the proposal should get to the point of the draft earlier.

"Agreed. This reads like a love poem, not an article of international law. Yet at the same time, the preamble doesn't really explain why A Promotion of Basic Education and Freedom to Read and Learn don't already cover this adequately.

Thank you for pointing this out. The attempted inspiration-and-awe won't be removed entirely, as the first reason for doing science is precisely that the universe is so fucking gorgeous; but we will need the space yielded by toning it down a little.

We'll address the legalities in the next draft, but for now I'll just say the boring answer is that those two resolutions weren't found to duplicate GAR #48 (so a replacement for it shouldn't offend or intrude on those resolutions to begin with); and the complicated answer is that GAR #80 requires students be taught the particular characteristics of their environment, but not how they came to be known, nor how the students themselves can advance the next level of understanding - in short, it doesn't mandate teaching the processes, how-to's, nuts-and-bolts, getting your hands dirty that scientific practice actually consists of. GAR #80's mandate would call the requirement for a dry recitation of century-old microscope observations sufficient to meet its biology requirement, whether a student's ever even looked through one or not - and that's simply not good enough. As for #234, it simply means those who try to teach themselves can't be punished for it - there's no positive education mandate in it whatsoever.

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

"Maybe I'm being overly literal, but people are sometimes punished for certain cybercrimes (hacking, data privacy violations, child pornography) by being prohibited from accessing computer equipment for a certain period of time. Such people would therefore not be allowed to take higher education courses involving computer access.

This is a valid concern. I believe it can be resolved with little effort.

4. Maintains silence on every other possible form of religious and philosophical instruction outside of science classes.

"The WA has urged its member states to 'create or support education programs in ethnic, racial, and cultural diversity', so I'm not sure that it can maintain silence on this point.

All this clause is intended to do is make clear that this resolution is silent on religious and philosophical instruction, excepting of course the urging in the previous clause. We'll make that clearer.

"We're not very supportive, to be honest, but we'll try to provide more comments if this is going ahead."

Honesty is valuable beyond any other virtue in this environment, Ms. Chinmusic. I thank you for taking the time to render critique. Obviously I hope to change your mind, but whether I do or not you've done us a service.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

No, this proposal doesn't prevent the dismissal of others beliefs. It encourages it. I have not misinterpreting this resolution. It requires theocratic governments, or any government, to teach subjects against their ideology. It forces parents to let their children be exposed to subjects that they do not wish. No one should be required to be exposed to other beliefs. It is an ideological ban.

The WA has no idea what the students of a particular nation need to learn. Biology, chemistry, and physics is not something that children need to learn. Neither is other religions and philosophy. If anything, students need to learn 'real life' skills that they would actually used in their everyday life once they are out of school.

Ambassador Nameless, you may wish to re-familiarize yourself with certain resolutions before making incredibly broad blanket statements.

For a nation named after a President of the United Federation of Planets you sure seem to have a marked distaste for learning about the ideas and practices of other cultures and philosophies

[Jarish Inyo]

I am familiar with GAR#80 and GAR#159.

GAR#80 requires a basic education as determined by the nation. It respects the nations culture, religious and political views.

GAR#159 sets international requirements for foreign exchange programs if a nation chooses to take part in such a program.

I have not made making incredibly broad blanket statements. They are points that no one has actually been able to dispute.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Thank you for pointing this out. The attempted inspiration-and-awe won't be removed entirely, as the first reason for doing science is precisely that the universe is so fucking gorgeous; but we will need the space yielded by toning it down a little.

Daisy snickers at the cartoon in her morning paper before looking up and responding to Ambassador Zakalwe.

"The draft at present reflects, to us, too much a concern about responding to specific, localised issues and trying to generalise them. The abstraction doesn't really work. I think it's clear what the major issue lurking behind all this really is, but trying to legislate in generalities risks terminal vagueness. For example:

Class topics are 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;

"Why shouldn't students learn about string theory?

Requires that students of general education schools be examined only as to their knowledge of scientific theories and practices; no oath or statement of belief may be required under any circumstances.

"Why not? So long as it doesn't hinder their education, requiring, say, a national pledge of allegiance doesn't seem a relevant concern.

"Honestly, I think you're responding to something immediate and specific, and yet trying to write in a general fashion based on that. That almost never works.

"Nonetheless, some practical suggestions:

• change "hands-on laboratory work" to "experimental work" (e.g. covering field ecology in biology)
• don't use "and/or"; it's bad legislative practice and "or" works just fine
• use a different word than "knowledge", which to us has a rather Gradgrindian feel: perhaps "understanding" would be better"

Daisy reads another cartoon from her paper and sniggers again.

~ Daisy Chimusic
Legislative Intern to the Dark Star WA Office

[Normlpeople]

Clover shook her head after the latest reading "The truth is, there is no way to write this while mandating specific forms of education without a degree of micromanagement. Perhaps re-writing it as an encouragement, while providing assistance to those interested, would achieve your goals while eliminating the micromanagement aspect of it?"

[Communal Ecotopia]

While we recognize improvements already discussed need to be made and are concerned at the amount of exemptions, we believe scientific literacy IS a right and approve this.

[The Flood]

"If all schools in the Flood are Catholic schools, does that exempt all Floodian schools from the provisions of this resolution?

We are mainly concerned with the fact that this resolution would hinder our ability to teach students that the existence of God and the innerancy of the Catholic faith are scientific facts."

[Jarish Inyo]

Under this proposal, you public schools can not teach that the existence of God and the innerancy of the Catholic faith are scientific facts. Your public schools will only acknowledge that are published in reputable, peer-reviewed science publications as science fact.

[The Flood]

Under this proposal, you public schools can not teach that the existence of God and the innerancy of the Catholic faith are scientific facts. Your public schools will only acknowledge that are published in reputable, peer-reviewed science publications as science fact.

"What if the scientists of the Flood are unanimous on the matter?"