tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8198390912401056862.post6339638938226375924..comments2023-10-14T06:19:18.000-05:00Comments on Rocket Scientist: Thieving Thursday: Do Your Own HomeworkStephanie Barrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17772217449161603561noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8198390912401056862.post-39870787865241683642009-09-11T17:14:45.186-05:002009-09-11T17:14:45.186-05:00This is certainly a problem that we've discuss...This is certainly a problem that we've discussed often in the past--especially as it affects scientific discourse. The average American gets his/her medical/science news from the media, not from the literature.<br /><br />That means that everything he reads is slanted by the point of view of the media, with all of its inherent biases and lack of understanding.<br /><br />I have no solutions. I know the average Joe isn't going to go back and read the original paper, as Stephanie and I do. Most probably wouldn't understand it anyway. <br /><br />If anyone has any fantastic answers to this problem, I'm all ears.The Motherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15157821003454766570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8198390912401056862.post-81557903372959791122009-09-11T14:12:27.534-05:002009-09-11T14:12:27.534-05:00I've found this tendency in my literature clas...I've found this tendency in my literature classes, which I run, I suppose, differently than most high school teachers (and perhaps more college teachers as well). Each class is an exploration of the text--not a lecture where I tell students what everything signifies, what the author intended to mean, blah, blah, blah. My students have to engage in the text themselves, take chances on interpretation, and show how they formed their ideas from the texts.<br /><br />Yet I always have a few students who object. They just want me to "tell them what it really means" so they don't have to think about it. But they don't understand. I don't KNOW what it means. How could I possibly know what it means? I've been studying Shakespeare since 9th grade (we're talking decades) and I still could not attest to anyone else that I KNOW what something means. The more we understand, the less we say we know.<br /><br />At least, that's what I THINK (not know).Dr. Cheryl Carvajalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15323455180953109460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8198390912401056862.post-20433018647095752792009-09-10T23:34:20.440-05:002009-09-10T23:34:20.440-05:00I hear you, Roy. That's one of the reasons wh...I hear you, Roy. That's one of the reasons why yours are the only religious discussions I look forward to.<br /><br />But it should be true of anything. Get the facts.<br /><br />Jen, the evidence against OJ was so overwhelming that you'd have to be sitting there going "lalalalalala" to think he might be innocent. It still boggles my mind.<br /><br />Thanks, Jeff.Stephanie Barrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17772217449161603561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8198390912401056862.post-86042772012515591962009-09-10T23:30:18.144-05:002009-09-10T23:30:18.144-05:00This is why I quote the original (or as original a...This is why I quote the original (or as original as we've been able to find) Greek manuscripts to fundamentalist Christians who insist on using the King James Version to make their points. The KJV is based on flawed sources which are three, four, and even five iterations removed from those earliest Greek manuscripts. And <i>all</i> of those iterations were agenda-driven. I was a history major in college, and the first thing they drive home in all the classes is <i>go to the source</i>. Any iteration beyond the original source isn't fact, it's hearsay.Royhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01648670975466222140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8198390912401056862.post-66908199282827158872009-09-10T22:54:44.999-05:002009-09-10T22:54:44.999-05:00i agree. it has happened to me before, prob to all...i agree. it has happened to me before, prob to all of us.<br /><br />live,learn and remember all you can do...Jeff Kinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00667419764890599092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8198390912401056862.post-67171607827037950292009-09-10T19:42:16.502-05:002009-09-10T19:42:16.502-05:00Couldn't agree more. I tend to not question a ...Couldn't agree more. I tend to not question a jury's verdict because I know they were privy to information I was not. Not in the case of OJ however. The case was presented poorly and I don't think the jury could have found him guilty based on the wonderful defense he had and the crappy job the state put on.Jenhttp://redheadranting.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.com