[PASSED] Repeal "Access to Science in Schools"

[Glen-Rhodes]

The resolution is clearly about hard sciences. It specifically names the theories of gravity and evolution.

But it certainly isn't suggesting that it only applies to "hard sciences." It uses those two theories as examples, not as "This only applies to hard science, such as gravity and evolution." It says "peer reviewed science" is the applicable area, which is much broader than the hard sciences.

Let's not delve into pseudo-textualist definition wank. Any reasonable reading of the resolution suggests that only hard sciences were intended to be included in the curriculum mandate.

[Auralia]

"You mentioned vocational schools should not be bound by this law because the material is not relevant. I disagree, surely the vocational subject includes some form of science that pertains to something in that field of occupations. If these sciences were taught, it would only increase the understanding of the chosen subject. Take electricians for example, the teaching of how electricity works is considered science. Why shouldn't these schools be required to teach this? Unless you can persuade me to a different mindset, I am against this."

Paul Greifen, Ambassador to the World Assembly

Three examples I picked at random from the relevant Wikipedia article are plumbing, baking and hair-styling. How is peer-reviewed science relevant in these cases?

I have read the debate transcripts, and have seen the idea that "some schools only offer graduate courses." While this seems to be rare, I think it is also even more rare for a graduate school to only offer a very narrow set of disciplines. (Say, a graduate school that is only English and Art, where science may not seem applicable. Though, social sciences still may be applicable). I don't see many exclusive English graduate schools. Science would probably be there somewhere.

The London School of Economics is a real-life example of a university that (to my knowledge) offers no courses in the natural sciences.

But it certainly isn't suggesting that it only applies to "hard sciences." It uses those two theories as examples, not as "This only applies to hard science, such as gravity and evolution." It says "peer reviewed science" is the applicable area, which is much broader than the hard sciences.

Let's not delve into pseudo-textualist definition wank. Any reasonable reading of the resolution suggests that only hard sciences were intended to be included in the curriculum mandate.

This. The resolution's provisions regarding religion and religious education also indicate that intent.

[Dellin]

But it certainly isn't suggesting that it only applies to "hard sciences." It uses those two theories as examples, not as "This only applies to hard science, such as gravity and evolution." It says "peer reviewed science" is the applicable area, which is much broader than the hard sciences.

Let's not delve into pseudo-textualist definition wank. Any reasonable reading of the resolution suggests that only hard sciences were intended to be included in the curriculum mandate.

Perhaps. But, if we want to see a "loophole," then there it is big time, and that loophole certainly easily allows other sciences to be included. They are, indeed, peer reviewed. If it says "Such as theories of cultural change or dreams," I would still read "peer reviewed" as the central wording.

This. The resolution's provisions regarding religion and religious education also indicate that intent.

Maybe. But religions can also have complaints about, say, anthropology, or psychology. Regardless, I would still say that you are probably going to be pretty hard pressed to find any form of school that doesn't use a "hard science" in some form. People have already made arguments about vocational schools, and my argument about graduate schools still stands.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Perhaps. But, if we want to see a "loophole," then there it is big time, and that loophole certainly easily allows other sciences to be included. They are, indeed, peer reviewed. If it says "Such as theories of cultural change or dreams," I would still read "peer reviewed" as the central wording.

It's not really a loophole, in the conventional sense. If a government wanted to include a broad liberal arts curriculum for its primary and secondary schools, they would do so regardless of Access to Science in Schools. If not, then they wouldn't utilize this loophole. So it's kind of pointless to even consider it, especially in light of the legislative history and the resolution's context.

[Alqania]

The London School of Economics is a real-life example of a university that (to my knowledge) offers no courses in the natural sciences.

OOC:

Maybe not in biology, chemistry or physics, but they do teach subjects like the environment, math, logic and scientific method (source).

A good repeal argument should be something there's a decent level of agreement on; when there's lots of disagreement about whether the target resolution does something, it's not the best of ideas to repeal it for doing that.

[Netrovk]

The United States of Netrovk highly oppose this as we pride ourselves on having a good education, this would not only harm our nations education, but harm the education of many other nations

[Araraukar]

Any reasonable reading of the resolution suggests that only hard sciences were intended to be included in the curriculum mandate.

Not to me. Science is science, and practically any research ever done in any category, is peer-reviewed. And I also read "school" meaning any level of education from kindergarten to university.

It sounds more and more as though the repeal author is confused by what is meant. It should make them happy that theology is also a science, and if you want to leave offering theology the only science available at a religious school, that is completely in compliance with the target resolution.

[Slafstopia]

The United States of Netrovk highly oppose this as we pride ourselves on having a good education, this would not only harm our nations education, but harm the education of many other nations

...I'm totally against this repeal, but you do know that this being repealed won't completely ban you from teaching science, right?

[Glen-Rhodes]

It sounds more and more as though the repeal author is confused by what is meant.

Auralia isn't confused. Neither am I, and neither were the people who debated the original resolution. I sincerely doubt you believe "science" refers to any academic discipline. The more likely course is that you found a nifty argument and latched onto it. Adopting your position only introduces more problems anyways. If "science" can be anything from biology to literary theory, then what exactly is required in the science mandate? Your position is that member states can pick one and be done. That's completely unsupported by the actual resolution, which was and is very clearly targeted toward parochial education. You're not going to convince Auralia to play definition wank, especially when your position is extraordinarily weak.

[Dellin]

It sounds more and more as though the repeal author is confused by what is meant.

Auralia isn't confused. Neither am I, and neither were the people who debated the original resolution. I sincerely doubt you believe "science" refers to any academic discipline. The more likely course is that you found a nifty argument and latched onto it. Adopting your position only introduces more problems anyways. If "science" can be anything from biology to literary theory, then what exactly is required in the science mandate? Your position is that member states can pick one and be done. That's completely unsupported by the actual resolution, which was and is very clearly targeted toward parochial education. You're not going to convince Auralia to play definition wank, especially when your position is extraordinarily weak.

I wouldn't count literary theory as science, but I certainly don't understand how the social SCIENCES, which are certainly also peer-reviewed, are being excluded from this definition. You are using literary theory as a red herring to make any definition that includes anything but the "hard sciences" absurd, but I find it equally absurd to exclude things like anthropology, sociology, etc.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I wouldn't count literary theory as science, but I certainly don't understand how the social SCIENCES, which are certainly also peer-reviewed, are being excluded from this definition. You are using literary theory as a red herring to make any definition that includes anything but the "hard sciences" absurd, but I find it equally absurd to exclude things like anthropology, sociology, etc.

The problem is that you're not defining "science" within the context of the resolution. I think there's quite a compelling argument that "science" is a broad category, thus there needs to be more guidance as to what is exactly required. (Though "liberal arts" as science in the context is still wrong.) What I dislike is the idea that the resolution isn't worth repealing, because "science" can just be wanked into a loophole.

I use literary theory because Araraukar is arguing that liberal arts (such as theology) can be included in the definition of science.

[Dellin]

I wouldn't count literary theory as science, but I certainly don't understand how the social SCIENCES, which are certainly also peer-reviewed, are being excluded from this definition. You are using literary theory as a red herring to make any definition that includes anything but the "hard sciences" absurd, but I find it equally absurd to exclude things like anthropology, sociology, etc.

The problem is that you're not defining "science" within the context of the resolution.

I use literary theory because Araraukar is arguing that liberal arts (such as theology) can be included in the definition of science.

I don't know whether I would agree; but theology has certainly historically been a science, and "theological sciences" does exist.

Also, what I found to be the problem with your definition of science is that you are assuming just as much as I am, but claiming that you are supported by the resolution. The resolution doesn't make it clear either way, and I am pretty sure that lack of clarity and the terminology "peer reviewed science" allows for the broader interpretation.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Also, what I found to be the problem with your definition of science is that you are assuming just as much as I am, but claiming that you are supported by the resolution. The resolution doesn't make it clear either way, and I am pretty sure that lack of clarity and the terminology "peer reviewed science" allows for the broader interpretation.

The context certainly does make it clear, and I think those who participated in the debate have some sort of supplementary authority on the matter. This thread is the very first time anybody has seriously suggested the science mandate extends beyond the hard sciences, for good reason. I think it's very hard to argue that Access to Science in Schools intended on including all possible sciences, when you take into consideration the context within which the drafting, debating and voting occurred.

Definitions aren't the primary source of meaning in legal interpretation. It isn't reasonable to think that Sionis Prioratus wanted to include social sciences, nor that the people voting on the resolution thought "science" meant any rigorous academic field. I can understand why you would see things differently, but you're engaging in a type of interpretation that leads to absurd results.

[Dellin]

Also, what I found to be the problem with your definition of science is that you are assuming just as much as I am, but claiming that you are supported by the resolution. The resolution doesn't make it clear either way, and I am pretty sure that lack of clarity and the terminology "peer reviewed science" allows for the broader interpretation.

The context certainly does make it clear, and I think those who participated in the debate have some sort of supplementary authority on the matter. This thread is the very first time anybody has seriously suggested the science mandate extends beyond the hard sciences, for good reason. I think it's very hard to argue that Access to Science in Schools intended on including all possible sciences, when you take into consideration the context within which the drafting, debating and voting occurred.

Definitions aren't the primary source of meaning in legal interpretation. It isn't reasonable to think that Sionis Prioratus wanted to include social sciences, nor that the people voting on the resolution thought "science" meant any rigorous academic field. I can understand why you would see things differently, but you're engaging in a type of interpretation that leads to absurd results.

I think it's a bad precedent to assume a resolution should always rely completely on its drafting "context," since that is already a pretty ambiguous concept. Yes, the debates remain where people can read them, but some end up very lengthy - so to understand a resolution completely, we always have to read 20 pages of debate, too? No, I don't think so.

Resolutions are supposed to explain their purpose. Many get repealed because those explanations are ambiguous. I don't think it's reasonable to say that the meaning "hard sciences" exists somewhere in the aether. This resolution never defines "science," except as "peer reviewed science." That includes all science that is peer reviewed. I don't see at all how me wanting the resolution to be clear and explain itself is "absurd," or the fact that I think having ambassadors read through hundreds and thousands of pages of debate for more than 250 resolutions is absurd is "absurd."

[Glen-Rhodes]

I think it's a bad precedent to assume a resolution should always rely completely on its drafting "context," since that is already a pretty ambiguous concept.

Let me make clear that I'm not talking about an author's intent. I think it's a mistake to not consider the context of the resolution and what it was thought to mean at the time it was being drafted, debated and voted on.

Yes, the debates remain where people can read them, but some end up very lengthy - so to understand a resolution completely, we always have to read 20 pages of debate, too? No, I don't think so.

When we're trying to determine what an unclear portion of a resolution means, that is definitely reasonable. When writing repeals or judging legality, it's really just part of due diligence. I don't think it's necessary to read the debate for Access to Science in Schools. I think the resolution provides its own context, but the debate does help if you're still questioning the context.

Resolutions are supposed to explain their purpose. Many get repealed because those explanations are ambiguous. I don't think it's reasonable to say that the meaning "hard sciences" exists somewhere in the aether. This resolution never defines "science," except as "peer reviewed science." That includes all science that is peer reviewed.

I don't know what else to say. The meaning is clear and I don't think you're reading the resolution in good faith. We can have a debate on which hard sciences are required, but we can't have a debate on if the mandate covers more than that group of scientific study.

[Dellin]

I think it's a bad precedent to assume a resolution should always rely completely on its drafting "context," since that is already a pretty ambiguous concept.

Let me make clear that I'm not talking about an author's intent. I think it's a mistake to not consider the context of the resolution and what it was thought to mean at the time it was being drafted, debated and voted on.

Yes, the debates remain where people can read them, but some end up very lengthy - so to understand a resolution completely, we always have to read 20 pages of debate, too? No, I don't think so.

When we're trying to determine what an unclear portion of a resolution means, that is definitely reasonable. When writing repeals or judging legality, it's really just part of due diligence. I don't think it's necessary to read the debate for Access to Science in Schools. I think the resolution provides its own context, but the debate does help if you're still questioning the context.

Resolutions are supposed to explain their purpose. Many get repealed because those explanations are ambiguous. I don't think it's reasonable to say that the meaning "hard sciences" exists somewhere in the aether. This resolution never defines "science," except as "peer reviewed science." That includes all science that is peer reviewed.

I don't know what else to say. The meaning is clear and I don't think you're reading the resolution in good faith. We can have a debate on which hard sciences are required, but we can't have a debate on if the mandate covers more than that group of scientific study.

If you aren't talking about author's intent, I am not quite sure what you are referring to. Context is related to author's intent--and the debate's intent. There isn't some organic context.

I certainly respect, ambassador, your position on this, and so it seems we will just not reach an agreement on the broadness of the resolution. I think there has been enough doubt expressed in their debates by other ambassadors, though, to suggest that this repeal will have some trouble

Edit: I also would say you are still relying on "author's intent" to some degree, but if there was some "intent" or particular "context" to the definition that existed within the debate, that might be useful to get into the resolution since, again, resolutions stand on their own as legally binding documents.

[Araraukar]

I sincerely doubt you believe "science" refers to any academic discipline.

Academic discipline in which research findings are published in peer-reviewed publications. You'd be surprised about the amount of "non-hard science" stuff I read just for fun (I read the "hard science" stuff for fun too, mind you). It's really only in English that I've encountered this weird specification that only "hard sciences" were "real science". I didn't grow up to viewing that as a fact. There's no class in schools called "science", we get biology and chemistry and whatnot as separated into their own classes.

I maintain that your assumption about the resolution is wrong in thinking it only applies to what are called "hard sciences" in English.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I sincerely doubt you believe "science" refers to any academic discipline.

Academic discipline in which research findings are published in peer-reviewed publications. You'd be surprised about the amount of "non-hard science" stuff I read just for fun (I read the "hard science" stuff for fun too, mind you). It's really only in English that I've encountered this weird specification that only "hard sciences" were "real science". I didn't grow up to viewing that as a fact. There's no class in schools called "science", we get biology and chemistry and whatnot as separated into their own classes.

I'm a student of political science, so I know the whole debate about whether liberals arts are or are not sciences. Don't even get me started on governments routinely cutting the social sciences, and the very particular attack on political science in the US. That's not a debate relevant to Access to Science in Schools, though.

I'm obviously not going to change your mind. All I'm going to say is that the context of the resolution has been clear for the 4 years the resolution has been in place. Nothing's changed since then except new people entering the game, one of who is proposing blatant definition wank. When talking about "science in schools," no reasonable person thinks they're talking about anything other than the core sciences taught in most primary and secondary schools.

If you aren't talking about author's intent, I am not quite sure what you are referring to. Context is related to author's intent--and the debate's intent. There isn't some organic context.

Intent and context are not perfectly synonymous. The way an author intends for their resolution to be interpreted is not always the way it is understood by the greater body. However, you are simply ignoring the context altogether. You've singled out the word "science" and determined that "science" can have many different meanings, when in actuality a reasonable look at the resolution will lead an objective person to understand that "science" has a narrower meaning within the context of the whole resolution. You can't determine what the mandate means by isolating one part; you have to look at the whole.

I certainly respect, ambassador, your position on this, and so it seems we will just not reach an agreement on the broadness of the resolution. I think there has been enough doubt expressed in their debates by other ambassadors, though, to suggest that this repeal will have some trouble

The repeal will have trouble because most people think science should be taught in school, not because most people don't have a general understanding of what kinds of science the resolution is talking about.

[Peoples Republic of Appalachia (Ancient)]

Leave it just to science that would serve no purpose. Higher education costs are rising globally. Cutbacks in repeative material whose sole purpose is indoctrination does not benefit the students. We should not bow down to tenured professors to satisfy their intellectual vainity. The Peoples Republic by way of New Bosnia support you. Our countries money is best spent on economic development and true critical thinking skills not just learning to recite verses from so called science holy books.

[Dellin]

If you aren't talking about author's intent, I am not quite sure what you are referring to. Context is related to author's intent--and the debate's intent. There isn't some organic context.

Intent and context are not perfectly synonymous. The way an author intends for their resolution to be interpreted is not always the way it is understood by the greater body. However, you are simply ignoring the context altogether. You've singled out the word "science" and determined that "science" can have many different meanings, when in actuality a reasonable look at the resolution will lead an objective person to understand that "science" has a narrower meaning within the context of the whole resolution. You can't determine what the mandate means by isolating one part; you have to look at the whole.

I still don't understand what this aether of "context" is. Is it the debate context (which is full of intent) or the entire context of the resolution? If the latter, which it should be, then I still don't understand how the context suggests that it only applies to certain forms of science. I have seen two things singled out:

1) It specifically mentions "evolution" and "gravity." However, those are used as examples and they don't stand in for all "hard sciences," either, so that creates another problem.

2) Religion is mentioned. As I said though, religion can easily complain about social sciences as well. I mean, take anthropology, which has evolution as part of its fundamental structure.

I'm not isolating one part. But both of these parts still don't narrow "science," they just give examples and exemptions. The most important term is still "peer reviewed science." The other parts still apply, but they easily apply beyond "hard science."

I certainly respect, ambassador, your position on this, and so it seems we will just not reach an agreement on the broadness of the resolution. I think there has been enough doubt expressed in their debates by other ambassadors, though, to suggest that this repeal will have some trouble

The repeal will have trouble because most people think science should be taught in school, not because most people don't have a general understanding of what kinds of science the resolution is talking about.

I've actually seen a lot of people arguing both things.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I still don't understand what this aether of "context" is. Is it the debate context (which is full of intent) or the entire context of the resolution?

Both provide the context in which interpretation should occur. Debate provides both intent and context. For example, the author shows their intent, and the opposition helps form the context from their arguments (which are based upon what the resolution is understood to mean).

1) It specifically mentions "evolution" and "gravity." However, those are used as examples and they don't stand in for all "hard sciences," either, so that creates another problem.

The mention of evolution and gravity are extremely strong contextual examples. You're looking for a definition of hard science, rather than looking at evolution and gravity as contextual examples of science in the resolution.

2) Religion is mentioned. As I said though, religion can easily complain about social sciences as well. I mean, take anthropology, which has evolution as part of its fundamental structure.

The inclusion of religion is also a pretty large indicator of context. Science and religion are cast as adversaries. When talking about "science in schools" in reference to religious beliefs, people aren't going to assume you're talking about anything other than the typical core sciences we see in primary and secondary schools.

I sincerely don't understand how you can't see the clear context of the resolution. You seem to be caught up in what things can mean, rather than what they would mean to an objective and reasonable reader.

[Auralia]

For the sake of argument, let's assume that the term "science" as used in GAR #48 includes the social sciences as well as the natural sciences. This actually makes things worse, when you think about it.

I think we've been assuming that, if the definition includes both types of sciences, schools will be free to pick the one they wish to teach. But that doesn't actually make any sense in context. It's clear that the resolution believes that all schools that receive governmental aid should teach the natural sciences, per the references to gravity and evolution in the preamble. It doesn't make sense that the resolution would allow schools to circumvent that intent by teaching the social sciences instead of the natural sciences.

Instead, I think that, if the definition were expanded, the resolution would simply impose an additional obligation on schools that receive governmental aid to teach both the social sciences and the natural sciences.

[Alqania]

Regional definitions aside, the general definition of the term "school" would include any educational institution, including universities and colleges. I have added a clause to clarify this:

Recognizing that the term "school" includes institutions of higher learning,

"What general definition?" inquired Lord Raekevik. "The Alqanian delegation has been unable to find any WA definition of the term 'school'."

"That clause there is what causes the problem with the target resolution. Effectively, this repeal proposal creates a problem with the target resolution and then demands its repeal based on that problem. Without this repeal, the problem does not exist. It ought to be illegal for attempting to amend the target resolution within its repeal, or, if the proposal rules have failed to disallow that, then it ought to be self-evident that it is a bloody stupid thing to do."

"And in any case, all other things notwithstanding, the Queendom is at a loss to understand why the perverse offspring of dogmatic orthodoxy and populist democracy that illegitimately and offensively deigns to call itself the Auralian government, in light of its ridiculous claims to be openly non-compliant with several resolutions passed by this esteemed assembly, has decided to repeal a resolution with which it does not agree, rather than simply adding it to the list of resolutions it claims not to adhere to. Or to put it more concisely: why does Auralia need to repeal anything if it claims to be non-compliant?"

"And in case it was not already abundantly clear, the Queendom feels obligated to lodge a complaint in the strongest terms possible against the regime deigning to call itself the Auralian government, against it being allowed to retain its membership in this assembly, and against it making comments on the interpretation of and compliance with resolutions. Any member that claims to be openly non-compliant ought to be ashamed and shunned from this assembly, and its words carry less weight than a fly's droppings."

EDIT:
As Lord Raekevik finished, one of the Alqanians seated next to him whispered something. The Ambassador's response was clearly audible by the chamber: "They're not a member anymore? Then why do they bother at all about what any resolution does?"

[Araraukar]

When talking about "science in schools," no reasonable person thinks they're talking about anything other than the core sciences taught in most primary and secondary schools.

So I'm an unreasonable person now?

You might be interested to know that one of the school subjects they have in basic education is "religion", or if you don't belong to a church and live in large enough town to have a different choice of class, "ethics". I've gone through 9 years of basic education, 3 years of secondary and a handful of university (on "hard sciences" of biology and chemistry), before hopping over to vocational for 3 years and graduating as lab tech.

The first 11 years of my school life contained religion as a class, same as history or math or geography, the 12th year had "general ethics" in place of religion, and then in university/vocational you didn't have to touch it if you didn't want to. Preaching was never involved and multiple religions were introduced after 6th year of school, but 6 years of school teaching me about Christianity made me into an atheist.

And I'm still arguing that theology counts as a science, same as history and math and whatnot.

You can call me unreasonable if you want, but do remember that you're saying the resolution's idea of science is exclusive, I'm reading it as inclusive. Each is as valid as the other, though I wouldn't try to use either view as something to base a repeal on.

when in actuality a reasonable look at the resolution will lead an objective person to understand that "science" has a narrower meaning within the context of the whole resolution. You can't determine what the mandate means by isolating one part; you have to look at the whole.

This is just your opinion of what is reasonable. And just how is rooting for an exclusive point of view "looking at the whole"?

The repeal will have trouble because most people think science should be taught in school, not because most people don't have a general understanding of what kinds of science the resolution is talking about.

You mean you and Auralia want to make it that issue, because for some reason you appear to be offended by the whole idea of science teaching. Honestly, if you took my view of science (which is as reasonable as yours), this resolution wouldn't harm anyone. Why are you so intent on claiming insult or injury from it?

EDIT: Read Auralia's last post after posting this.

It should be fairly well known by now that if a proposal doesn't define what it means, the interpretation often allows for a great degree of optionality. It may be looked upon as roleplaying non-compliance in a clever manner, but if you follow the letter of the law rather than the spirit, you're still in compliance. (It's the spirit that is unknown here, and thus the bone of contention.)

[Dellin]

For the sake of argument, let's assume that the term "science" as used in GAR #48 includes the social sciences as well as the natural sciences. This actually makes things worse, when you think about it.

I think we've been assuming that, if the definition includes both types of sciences, schools will be free to pick the one they wish to teach. But that doesn't actually make any sense in context. It's clear that the resolution believes that all schools that receive governmental aid should teach the natural sciences, per the references to gravity and evolution in the preamble. It doesn't make sense that the resolution would allow schools to circumvent that intent by teaching the social sciences instead of the natural sciences.

Instead, I think that, if the definition were expanded, the resolution would simply impose an additional obligation on schools that receive governmental aid to teach both the social sciences and the natural sciences.

I have to agree with Ambassador Leveret on this point. You saying that it "doesn't make sense" or that something is "clear" because of two examplesgiven (I don't understand how we are being too narrow, but acting like these examples are definitely meant to stand in for some strict definition of science isn't narrow) is your opinion.

If the "intent" or "context" is to define science a particular way, fine, define it that way in the resolution. However, it isn't, allowing the broader interpretation. You are creating your own opinion of the interpretation, then repealing it based on that because that's the only way your repeal works.