A am not fighting with anybody - I just try to explain how thins in the Universe work to those who does not know it.

In the USA scientific education is on 23rd place (not my opinion, by the way - US statistical data, although they are 2-year old - now with Kansas banned teaching evolution and Big Bang the quality of USA education had fallen to even worse ranking).

Is not it embarassing, when students only in college discover how to add fractions (4-5 grade in most countries), how to solve system of linear equations (7th grade), how to balance chemical equations (7-8 grade), or what is the Ohm law about(6-7 grade)?

No wonder, almost everyone after graduation of such "colleges" still believes in no evolution, no Big Bang but instead in various forms of Gods and other superstitions, and everyone is very literate in Scripture(s), citing them even in scientific discussions. No wonder there are so many "alternative theories" where authors prove "scientifically" that the Earth is 6000 years old, that we humans have nothing in common with apes and that the Big Bang facts are just an optical illusion.

No wonder, that there is Flat Earth Society and numerous other sects around.

If metascientific discussions(when the people who discuss science do not know Laws of nature and their origin, or how evolution work, or what is biochemistry, etc) are common even in colleges like Harvard, then what (and how) do they teach in these Harvards afer all? Creationism? Buddism?

Or should we just agree that because Harvard (and other "top" colleges in the USA) are 23rd among good colleges of other contries, then we should consider Harward just as a good high scool in some "developing" country?

But actually, who cares about quality of teaching of science in the USA? Who needs science anyway?(To most people all answers are in the Bible, right?)

• Re: Does anyone need science and good education? - blnelsonusa - February 15, 2001 - 14:15 UTC
  • Science is the method of determining truth - richard - February 15, 2001 - 21:59 UTC
    • Re: Science is the method of determining truth - blnelsonusa - February 16, 2001 - 00:02 UTC
      • Re: Re: Science is the method of determining truth - stormcrow - February 16, 2001 - 01:06 UTC
        • A Perfunctory Reading - blnelsonusa - February 16, 2001 - 03:50 UTC
          • Re: A Perfunctory Reading - stormcrow - February 16, 2001 - 04:23 UTC
            • Oh, and one more thing (or two) - stormcrow - February 16, 2001 - 04:34 UTC
              • Re: Oh, and one more thing (or two) - yanniru - February 16, 2001 - 13:12 UTC
                • Mr or Dr Nelson? - alexander - February 16, 2001 - 13:19 UTC
                  • Re: Mr or Dr Nelson? - miltionh12 - February 16, 2001 - 14:03 UTC
                    • Not Dr Nelson? May be, Master at least? In what? - alexander - February 16, 2001 - 19:46 UTC
                      • Re: Not Dr Nelson? May be, Master at least? In what? - blnelsonusa - February 16, 2001 - 21:44 UTC
                        • Wher would we be without science? - alexander - February 17, 2001 - 03:06 UTC
                • Maybe... - stormcrow - February 16, 2001 - 21:36 UTC
                  • Re: Maybe... - yanniru - February 16, 2001 - 22:00 UTC
                    • That's true - stormcrow - February 17, 2001 - 03:25 UTC
                    • Disagree. You never know what new research may bring - alexander - February 17, 2001 - 03:55 UTC
                    • Heck Einstein had to wait... - richard - February 17, 2001 - 23:53 UTC
                      • Re: Heck Einstein had to wait... - yanniru - February 19, 2001 - 15:33 UTC
                      • Einstein never won prize for relativity. - alexander - February 20, 2001 - 02:21 UTC
                        • I stand corrected. - richard - February 20, 2001 - 17:17 UTC
                          • Swedesh Nobel Commetee - alexander - February 20, 2001 - 19:18 UTC
                            • Re: Swedesh Nobel Commetee - richard - February 20, 2001 - 21:11 UTC
      • Reposting an earlier comment you... - richard - February 16, 2001 - 02:57 UTC
      • Re: Re: Science is the method of determining truth - richard - February 20, 2001 - 17:20 UTC
  • To analyse or to dogm? - alexander - February 16, 2001 - 10:42 UTC