[DEFEATED] Repeal "Promoting Natural Sciences in Schools"

[Xeknos]

The Federation of Xeknos is not in the business of haphazardly repealing legislation without clear plans to replace/fix said legislation.

We vote Against.

[Sylvai]

Hopeful that, although GAR #475 has noble intentions and addresses an important issue, better written and defined legislation on this topic can be soon passed by this Assembly,

Without the assurance that there will actually be further legislation on this topic, the relatively sound 475 should not be repealed. Indeed, it may not be necessary at all to repeal the resolution to address the issues in it. Kaschovia should have drafted a replacement for 475 along with this bill to be submitted.

[Creslonia]

"Although some of the points laid out in this repeal are valid, Creslonia cannot support it, due to the lack of replacement legislation. The current trend in the World Assembly of repealling resolutions without providing adequate replacements (or providing none at all) has gotten out of hand. Creslonia is voting against this repeal."
- Alexander Finch, Minister of Foreign Affairs

Office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
2 Creslon Square
Creslon City, East Island 0123
Republic of Creslonia
Website: www.mfa.gov.cs
Email: mfaenquires@mfa.cge.cs
Freephone: 0900 001 000
International Phone: +341 000 001 0000

[PotatoFarmers]

"Against the original, so for the repeal. With regards to a replacement, maybe we might put some effort to write a replacement to replace the original bill which has some loopholes and problems preventing effective implementation of its objectives."

[Kaschovia]

"Although some of the points laid out in this repeal are valid, Creslonia cannot support it, due to the lack of replacement legislation. The current trend in the World Assembly of repealling resolutions without providing adequate replacements (or providing none at all) has gotten out of hand. Creslonia is voting against this repeal."
- Alexander Finch, Minister of Foreign Affairs

Office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
2 Creslon Square
Creslon City, East Island 0123
Republic of Creslonia
Website: http://www.mfa.gov.cs
Email: mfaenquires@mfa.cge.cs
Freephone: 0900 001 000
International Phone: +341 000 001 0000

"I have a replacement already."

[Kaschovia]

FYI: I have a replacement in the works already, for anyone wondering whether a replacement is being drafted.

Here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=473296

[McMasterdonia]

The North Pacific Ministry of World Assembly Affairs has issued a recommendation that WA nations vote FOR this proposal. Consistent with the vote on our regional forum I have also voted For. Good luck with your proposal!

[Imperium Anglorum]

I find the author's argument wholly unconvincing. To borrow a phrase from Tzorslands, it seems that some repeal authors have a very low opinion indeed of the ability of members to understand words (to quote directly, 'Apparently people are "confused" easily these days'). Also, when considering that many people seem to object to delegation of interpretation to a WA committee and to micromanagement, arguments such as these would remove any space available to authors to write anything with words in it.

I am also unclear as to how the target resolution—

...neglects a fundamental scientific practise [sic, in BrE a practice here] in the employment of the peer-review process in setting standards... (bolding mine)

when the target has no mention of peer review at all; how can peer-review be employed?

Moreover, I would like clarification from the author as to the meaning of this clause—

Troubled that the mandates of Clause 5, as it allows for problematic scenarios in the case of the prohibition of deliberate dissemination of 'false' information, can be evaded where hypotheses or ideas, unaccepted by the scientific community, can be taught mistakenly as a result of the vagueness in Clause 2, without deliberately disseminating 'false' information,

as if it seems untrue to claim that clause 5 provides an exception based on clause 2. Broadly, some more work would have been appreciated in clarifying what claims are made, what warrants support them, and what impacts those claims have.

[Kaschovia]

I find the author's argument wholly unconvincing. To borrow a phrase from Tzorslands, it seems that some repeal authors have a very low opinion indeed of the ability of members to understand words (to quote directly, 'Apparently people are "confused" easily these days'). Also, when considering that many people seem to object to delegation of interpretation to a WA committee and to micromanagement, arguments such as these would remove any space available to authors to write anything with words in it.

I am also unclear as to how the target resolution—

...neglects a fundamental scientific practise [sic, in BrE a practice here] in the employment of the peer-review process in setting standards... (bolding mine)

when the target has no mention of peer review at all; how can peer-review be employed?

Moreover, I would like clarification from the author as to the meaning of this clause—

Troubled that the mandates of Clause 5, as it allows for problematic scenarios in the case of the prohibition of deliberate dissemination of 'false' information, can be evaded where hypotheses or ideas, unaccepted by the scientific community, can be taught mistakenly as a result of the vagueness in Clause 2, without deliberately disseminating 'false' information,

as if it seems untrue to claim that clause 5 provides an exception based on clause 2. Broadly, some more work would have been appreciated in clarifying what claims are made, what warrants support them, and what impacts those claims have.

Firstly, you've misread the clause addressing the peer-review process. The scientific practise of the employment of the peer-review process has been neglected.

Secondly, there are many unscientific arguments that can be derived from natural phenomena and empirical (observational) evidence, because they cannot be verified or debunked if no peer-review process is employed. If you assume that all arguments that are to be taught in schools are in perfect alignment with currently accepted scientific knowledge then it will be impossible for me to convince you that the grey area created by GAR#475 puts actual scientific teaching at risk.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'll respond to things in the last post later; at work on mobile. But about work, I work in a government department connected intimately with academia. Why does your argument seem to presume that peer review is some kind of process that sorts omnisciently between cruft and gems of science?

It's obvious that peer review isn't perfect: the Wakefield article claiming autism and vaccines were linked was published in the Lancet, the fourth-most impactful medical journal and one of the oldest medical journals on the planet. Referee processes are regularly assigned out to graduate students and other professors. Many journals have to incentivise referees to return feedback with bonuses up to a thousand dollars.

Moreover, the consensus in a field can be touched only rarely by new research. There has been little research on switching costs in the deposit market since 1994. But peer review and the whims of journal editors, who refer articles to peer review, are highly myopic, caring mostly for the new and novel. Why is this specific procedural quirk of publishing the centrepiece of your case?

[Kaschovia]

I'll respond to things in the last post later; at work on mobile. But about work, I work in a government department connected intimately with academia. Why does your argument seem to presume that peer review is some kind of process that sorts omnisciently between cruft and gems of science?

It's obvious that peer review isn't perfect: the Wakefield article claiming autism and vaccines were linked was published in the Lancet, the fourth-most impactful medical journal and one of the oldest medical journals on the planet. Referee processes are regularly assigned out to graduate students and other professors. Many journals have to incentivise referees to return feedback with bonuses up to a thousand dollars.

Moreover, the consensus in a field can be touched only rarely by new research. There has been little research on switching costs in the deposit market since 1994. But peer review and the whims of journal editors, who refer articles to peer review, are highly myopic, caring mostly for the new and novel. Why is this specific procedural quirk of publishing the centrepiece of your case?

The few negative cases where certain people have misused the actual peer-review process for their own personal causes, do not disqualify or discredit the actual peer-review process, but rather the people who intentionally misuse it to push their own agenda. It is what science is built upon, and has facilitated far more advancement than the requirements the current resolution allows.

[Kenmoria]

I'll respond to things in the last post later; at work on mobile. But about work, I work in a government department connected intimately with academia. Why does your argument seem to presume that peer review is some kind of process that sorts omnisciently between cruft and gems of science?

It's obvious that peer review isn't perfect: the Wakefield article claiming autism and vaccines were linked was published in the Lancet, the fourth-most impactful medical journal and one of the oldest medical journals on the planet. Referee processes are regularly assigned out to graduate students and other professors. Many journals have to incentivise referees to return feedback with bonuses up to a thousand dollars.

Moreover, the consensus in a field can be touched only rarely by new research. There has been little research on switching costs in the deposit market since 1994. But peer review and the whims of journal editors, who refer articles to peer review, are highly myopic, caring mostly for the new and novel. Why is this specific procedural quirk of publishing the centrepiece of your case?

The few negative cases where certain people have misused the actual peer-review process for their own personal causes, do not disqualify or discredit the actual peer-review process, but rather the people who intentionally misuse it to push their own agenda. It is what science is built upon, and has facilitated far more advancement than the requirements the current resolution allows.

(OOC: Although the peer-review process is a way of verifying scientific evidence, it is not the entirety of what constitutes good science. The resolution actually requires the far higher standard of the knowledge being taught having to be factually true.

Of course, it may be argued that there are different interpretations of what constitutes truth, but it would not be a good-faith approach for a member nation to claim a blatant falsehood as verifiable. Almost any resolution would fall apart with a state wilfully misinterpreting the clauses.

A member state complying in good faith with the manatee of the relevant clause would use processes accepted by science, including the peer-reviewed process, in order to ascertain what is true, and then teach that. This is not written into the actual clause, but I assume that member nations would know of commonly-used ways to verify scientific knowledge, and then utilise these accordingly.)

[Imperium Anglorum]

So basically your response to problems in peer review—which professors in planning, urban design, economics, and classics have personal experience with, supported with clear evidence from medicine—is to say 'bad apples' and pretend they don't exist. Academic politics is a strong motivator, and while it rarely leaves the mortarboard, it has a strong impact.

I am reminded of a Foucaultian idea here, especially the hegemony of power relations over the creation of truth. There are lots of problems with peer review, some are systemic, and it is highly imperfect. At best, this reliance can be attributed to a second-best choice. At worst the implications of this argument create profoundly negative impacts on public discourse and the approachability of fields of study.

[Kaschovia]

The few negative cases where certain people have misused the actual peer-review process for their own personal causes, do not disqualify or discredit the actual peer-review process, but rather the people who intentionally misuse it to push their own agenda. It is what science is built upon, and has facilitated far more advancement than the requirements the current resolution allows.

(OOC: Although the peer-review process is a way of verifying scientific evidence, it is not the entirety of what constitutes good science. The resolution actually requires the far higher standard of the knowledge being taught having to be factually true.

Of course, it may be argued that there are different interpretations of what constitutes truth, but it would not be a good-faith approach for a member nation to claim a blatant falsehood as verifiable. Almost any resolution would fall apart with a state wilfully misinterpreting the clauses.

A member state complying in good faith with the manatee of the relevant clause would use processes accepted by science, including the peer-reviewed process, in order to ascertain what is true, and then teach that. This is not written into the actual clause, but I assume that member nations would know of commonly-used ways to verify scientific knowledge, and then utilise these accordingly.)

I am not saying that the peer-review process is the be-all-and-end-all of scientific practise, and I am not saying that it is always perfectly applied. All I am saying is that without it written into law as a way of setting the standard for scientific teaching, how does the resolution really create this higher standard for scientific teaching that you say it does?

Your interpretation of the nature of truth, that there exists a subset of information that is absolutely true, to be applied to this resolution as a means of understanding it and applying it, still baffles me. I'd appreciate you explain it further, so that we can all try and understand how absolute truth is to be understood and taught to children.

Imagine two subsets of all that can be taught. The first is information that can be gained by logical deductions, and the second is true information. Clause 5 mandates that only information in the second subset can be taught, whereas other clauses mandate the teaching of information in the first subset. Combining these, the resolution obligates the teaching of true information about the natural sciences.

And, if we're to assume that nations will comply with the resolution in good faith, why not just include it? Why assume that nations will follow the mandates as you want them to when you can just write into the law so that it absolutely does?

So basically your response to problems in peer review—which professors in planning, urban design, economics, and classics have personal experience with, supported with clear evidence from medicine—is to say 'bad apples' and pretend they don't exist. Academic politics is a strong motivator, and while it rarely leaves the mortarboard, it has a strong impact.

I am reminded of a Foucaultian idea here, especially the hegemony of power relations over the creation of truth. There are lots of problems with peer review, some are systemic, and it is highly imperfect. At best, this reliance can be attributed to a second-best choice. At worst the implications of this argument create profoundly negative impacts on public discourse and the approachability of fields of study.

I'm really not sure what your point is here. As I have said, I do not believe that the peer-review process is perfect, but that it allows for the best system of checking hypotheses against other experiments and verifying assumptions that would otherwise be taught, were they derived solely from natural phenomena and empirical evidence. Kenmoria has said that we must assume that the process be followed without it actually being present in the resolution, and somehow that makes the standard of teaching higher?

To delve into the political side of the debate here, I would argue that hegemonic determination of the verity of information is enabled much further in the absence of the peer-review process, as it allows for one party, one idea, one truth systems to develop, especially, but not exclusive to, theocratic belief systems of which may be imposed upon a large population, and therefore their academics.

Do you not agree that, within the current resolution, this possibly theocratic, and most surely hegemonic, system of determining the value of certain information within a body of academics is actually supported, as it does not ensure a system of checks? I would argue that the peer-review process is a level above the current resolution.

1. A hypothesis is made by a leading researcher in a nation. This hypothesis has been derived from natural phenomena and empirical evidence.

2. In a system of peer-review, many scientists disagree with the hypotheses, and run experiments that seem to disprove it.

3. But, in the best interest of the nation's political and academic agenda, they teach it, because it enforces their agenda.

4. Nobody can stop this. Not even the law that addresses it. Despite overwhelming opposition from a majority of scientists working in the same field of study, those students are taught what seems to have been disproven many times.

[Cuba-Venezuela]

I don't think it's necessary to take down the resolution - it's been in existence for a long time, and it has allowed for enormous scientific education amongst students in nations throughout the World Assembly.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Although the peer-review process is a way of verifying scientific evidence, it is not the entirety of what constitutes good science. The resolution actually requires the far higher standard of the knowledge being taught having to be factually true.

Of course, it may be argued that there are different interpretations of what constitutes truth, but it would not be a good-faith approach for a member nation to claim a blatant falsehood as verifiable. Almost any resolution would fall apart with a state wilfully misinterpreting the clauses.

A member state complying in good faith with the manatee of the relevant clause would use processes accepted by science, including the peer-reviewed process, in order to ascertain what is true, and then teach that. This is not written into the actual clause, but I assume that member nations would know of commonly-used ways to verify scientific knowledge, and then utilise these accordingly.)

I am not saying that the peer-review process is the be-all-and-end-all of scientific practise, and I am not saying that it is always perfectly applied. All I am saying is that without it written into law as a way of setting the standard for scientific teaching, how does the resolution really create this higher standard for scientific teaching that you say it does?

(OOC: A large part of the resolution was based on mandating that science is offered in the first place, which has been achieved. The second major part is that member nations may not teach false information in classes. I don’t see how this could be misinterpreted, except by a very creatively compliant member nation, to the extent of bad faith. Peer-review is merely one tool in the arsenal of scientists, and it would be micromanagement to demand specific procedures to validate scientific discoveries.

Your interpretation of the nature of truth, that there exists a subset of information that is absolutely true, to be applied to this resolution as a means of understanding it and applying it, still baffles me. I'd appreciate you explain it further, so that we can all try and understand how absolute truth is to be understood and taught to children.

Absolute truth, I acknowledge, doesn’t exist in any real sense. However, laws can still demand that true information be taught. It is, from a technical standpoint, impossible to truly say whether anything outside of one’s consciousness exists, but that does not mean that legislation can’t ask for elements of a crime or misbehaviour to be proved to have occurred. To a reasonable standard, a member nation should be able to ascertain that electrons exist and unicorns do not.

Imagine two subsets of all that can be taught. The first is information that can be gained by logical deductions, and the second is true information. Clause 5 mandates that only information in the second subset can be taught, whereas other clauses mandate the teaching of information in the first subset. Combining these, the resolution obligates the teaching of true information about the natural sciences.

And, if we're to assume that nations will comply with the resolution in good faith, why not just include it? Why assume that nations will follow the mandates as you want them to when you can just write into the law so that it absolutely does?

I viewed there as being no need to include a requirement to view the legislation in good faith. Firstly, I’m fairly certain GA #002 does that. Secondly, if a member nation wants to interpret clauses in bad faith, it’s almost impossible to stop them, since they can just claim any interpretation to be a good-faith one.)

[Shaktirajya]

We, the People's Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya, hereby vote FOR this appeal, the reason being that We believe that private schools should also be REQUIRED to provide adequate science funding. An educational institution's sectarian views should never, We repeat never, supersede the need for a hearty and thorough scientific education.

Vaktaha Samajavadinaha Matatantrasya Shaktirajyasya

[Kenmoria]

"Repeal "Promoting Natural Sciences in Schools"" was defeated 9,090 votes to 5,664.