<p>gah! I'm only a sophmore. I have no idea how I'm going to survive 2 more years of highschool :(</p>
<p>To the OP, I second u, although that ain't gonna happen in near future!</p>
<p>how im gonna survive my last yr of hs...im already getting sick so much that my grades dropped a lot this quater need to bring it back up so my total yr average is good..ive got senioritis already ive had it since febuary of this yr(imma 11th grader jus' so u know)</p>
<p>u r having junioritis!</p>
<p>Take a look at this article I found [url=<a href="http://www.mattfarina.com/2006/09/28/social_conditioning_our_scientific_views%5Dhere%5B/url">http://www.mattfarina.com/2006/09/28/social_conditioning_our_scientific_views]here[/url</a>].</p>
<p>
[quote]
We have all been socially conditioned. Our parents did it when they told us to eat our vegetables and clean our rooms. Our friends did it to us when they egged us on to do one more shot at the bar. Then, in conditioned fashion, we would egg them on for the same thing and walk away thinking it was cool. We may not have all been socially conditioned the same way and for the same things but we have all been socially conditioned.</p>
<p>There is one area, I believe, we have been socially conditioned in a way that we often don't admit and can hinder our progress as a people. That area is in the sciences. For most of us we took grade school science and maybe a little college level. There are the exceptions that moved beyond into careers, but they too have been socially conditioned by the time they get there.</p>
<p>Let me try to illustrate this with a little theory example. Lets bring up the theory of Intelligent Design. What do most of us think? Do we ask what the scientific merit is? Do we ask for the evidence and an explanation of the theory? Or, do we instantly think, 'Religious Right Winged Crap'? Do we think, 'There go those Christians again'? I would say that for many of us the latter is what we think over the former. Is that because we know the theory is wrong? Is that because we know the details of the theory? Is that because we even know much about the scientific supporters? For most of I would say that isn't the case. We have been socially conditioned to react this way.</p>
<p>In this particular case we have schools that don't teach it but teach alternatives. This weighs in greatly on the students view. We have the media that writes things like:</p>
<pre><code>What is intelligent design? Intelligent design is the belief that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection cannot explain some life forms, and that an unseen, intelligent force created them. Most scientists view intelligent design as nonscientific and based on religious beliefs. They strongly object to presenting it to students as part of a science curriculum. (Detroit Free Press 9/21/06)
</code></pre>
<p>The question asked is, "What is intelligent design?" but the answer given is not the answer to the question. It gives an arguable stance that is persuasive to many readers to think this about Intelligent Design and that it isn't worth looking into. Now, my point here is not to argue ID but that we are being socially conditioned in our view of the sciences.</p>
<p>This can be very dangerous because through this social conditioning we are conditioning belief. Take, another popular example, the theory of evolution. We don't know that it is true. It hasn't been proven. If it were proven it wouldn't be a theory. Yet, in our schools it is often taught as if it were true. My biology book and the biology classes I took treated it that way. As if it were a given. But, because we don't know it to be true, when we think it's true we are believing something unproven to be true. Sound like religion?</p>
<p>Science is supposed to be as objective as possible in it's task of, "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." This isn't happening. When someone steps outside of the conditioned response how does the public react? It isn't very kind. How do scientists respond? Well, for example look at what a professor at Texas Tech University said:</p>
<p>[Someone who denies evolution] has committed malpractice regarding the method of science. How can someone who denies the theory of evolution the very pinnacle of modern biological science ask to be recommended into a scientific profession by a professional scientist?</p>
<p>How can someone deny a theory? Isn't science supposed to be about the search for the truth? Not, to uphold our beliefs in a theory? Shouldn't we want unproven theories to be tested and if there is a theory out there that better supports the information to examine that? But, our scientific beliefs turn this from a search for truth through science to a defense of our core beliefs in unproven theories.</p>
<p>This really is about social conditioning. Those same scientists have been socially conditioned since grade school to think and act this way. The public has been socially conditioned to think this way about theories that challenge our perception on the world. I think the first step is we have to admit that we have been socially conditioned this way. I admit it. Do you?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Clear your dang PM space Chaos.
(Sorry for the off-topic comment)</p>
<p>Interesting article, Chaos. I personally agree!</p>
<p>My high school almost does end. April is review for IB exams, which are in May. Many classes are optional, and the ones that aren't generally are super relaxed. Teachers are generally really easygoing, skipping tons of class is common, and everyone generally is pretty happy. Grad is right after IB exams, and so everything's over pretty fast.</p>
<p>ChaosTheory: Why is that germane to this discussion? Assuming it's relevant though, it's actually a pretty useless article. Looking at the guy's blog, he is obviously at least on some level in favor of Intelligent Design being taught in schools. However, his argument for why it should be is spurious and generally useless. He nitpicks a bunch of things which are all true, and uses it to make the oft-repeated argument that science is somehow conditioning people (the implication is that this is in a bad way). To refute his particular example: in high school, scientific debate is not generally useful. No high school student is knowledgeable enough about most theories to be able to really grasp the nuances that are important in debates that are ongoing. What must be presented in order to actually allow useful learning is the current scientific consensus. Evolution is the scientific consensus, so it's taught. Intelligent Design, for all of its proponents, is not science, and it's not a theory, which is why it is so vociferously rejected and generally relegated to religious theorizing. Saying that someone who denies evolution (which is a theory with reams and reams more evidence for it than any competing theories) has committed scientific malpractice is justified, as they are ignoring the evidence available in favor of whatever they personally believe.</p>
<p>Further, the guy writing the article makes the point that theory is not fact. Yeah, clearly. But is it really useful to acknowledge that every time we reference a theory? Once a theory becomes clearly demonstrated and has made true predictions, it is really pretty much useless to keep saying that it's a theory and not proven. That's just obvious. It doesn't mean that every competing theory needs to be given time or legitimized. It simply means that if a legitimate alternative theory with enough evidence challenges it, people must be flexible enough to incorporate this into their body of fact.</p>
<p>Basically, the blogger is playing semantic games to try and get his generally useless point across. Yes, technically we should all be more accurate regarding the truth of theories, and how we use the terminology. But the fact that we aren't is not indicative of some kind of huge social conditioning - it's reflective of the fact that people would rather not waste their time with all kinds of semantic flip-flopping in order to be perfectly accurate. It happens all the time, and science is a bad example of it - especially in regards to the ID debate, which is basically not a scientific debate, since ID isn't science.</p>
<p>damn you east coasters! i still have a month and a half to go after AP exams. BAH!</p>
<p>and to address the article...it is disengenuous. Evolution is a theory that has an extensive amount of evidence to back it up, and no evidence to debunk it. </p>
<p>There is a huge difference between a theory and a hypothesis, the latter of which is what the writer is ACTUALLY referring to. This writer has a very limited scope of scientific knowledge.</p>
<p>I have a 41 in calc right now. I got 9/28 and 3/17 on our last two tests. And I have absolutely no motivation whatsoever to study. I am soooooo screwed.</p>
<p>1of42 made a great arguement. :)</p>
<p>In addition, ChaosTheory, we were socially conditioned to accept what we learn from school (or from parents/authority). If people were only thoughtful enough to <em>gasp</em> actually read the textbooks/encylopedias on their own (to inform themselves about the material), then there wouldn't be so many debates over teaching intelligent design in the public schools.</p>
<p>This is also why so few people actually take the initiative to self-study, or discourage people from self-studying APs, when the evidence is clearly in favor of "AP self-studying works". When they learn too little for their standardized tests - they blame their own schools. They try to find oh another school for the child (instead of <em>gasp</em> having the imagination to give materials to the child and giving URLs to Internet forums where the child can ask questions about the material if he has trouble). According to Freakonomics, when students switch between schools, their performance on state tests does not improve at all (also, read the Nurture Assumption by Judith Rich Harris). </p>
<p>(not that teaching evolution in public schools does much - given that 50% of the American populace is Creationist). Most people forget almost all of what they learn from high school biology - such that a person will sound like he's educated if he mentions the word mitochondria - a word I learned in 7th grade biology (and my class wasn't advanced).</p>