rileyuk.co.uk

I had an interesting discission with Claire about this last night - and I had the thought that wasn't Brian Dowling (openly gay and camp as a row of tents) presenting kids tv at one point ???

I wonder if the kids who watched it understood that he was gay ?? Goes to show that it's definately not hidden from children in the media though !!!

I don't think it should be hidden from children. Its always said we fear that which we do not understand. If children aren't informed about these issues and taught the facts properly, they will understand and therefore be less coy about things like this. There will be less excitment over such things in schools.

The only question I have about that is the use of the word "facts". Unfortunately, when emotive issues are involved "facts" are presented which can be factual only from a particular perspective. This is usually the current paradigm, or the currently politically correct viewpoint....

In social issues, there may be few facts, lots of expediences and certainly lots of opinions.

My old English teacher will now be turning in his grave at my use of the word "lots", which he would remind me is something you find in an auction. Ah well, the use of English can change....

By facts, john, I refer to statements like:

(when talking about homosexual) "Their sexuality doesn't affect you"

I agree there are a lot of opinions regarding issues like this, but as with anything there are always facts and figures.

Without saying whether we agree with it or not, if we take the atatement you quote "their sexuality doesn't affect you" I would always challenge it as a "fact". Who says so? How do they know? Has the hypothesis been tested in a controlled way? It sounds rather like a slogan, which is not a fact IMHO.

Take another quote "Speed Kills". Many people accept that at face value, but if we ask "Does it?" the answer is probably no. Before stephenson's Rocket stormed down the tracks at 30mph scientists conclusively proved that at speeds above 25mph human beings would be unable to breathe and would suffocate. A fact? If speed kills then we'd better not get in a plane or even get on a train. What kills in this context is more like the rather rapid deceleration that results from hitting a wall at 100mph....This is governed by the equation force=mass x acceleration (deceleration in this case).

It's very difficult to present unassailable facts in this world, because they depend on our perceptions, which are not accurate anyway.

Despite this, we still do our best!

I think that Facts can be jaded by personal opinion. Also the term Fact is thrown about lightly. This is a generalisation I know but I am always wary of the media throwing facts and figures at me. The government falls into this category too, they tend to take statistical analysis as fact. For example the world was known to be flat - Fact c1200. :?

update: the school headteacher has had to put the idea on hold while the board of govenors discuss the matter. keeping in mind this is the same board of governors who have taken three months to decide what they want in a new deputy-head when the current one leaves, and the only thing they are all agreed on so far is that the person should be christian, you can image the kind of reception the idea of teaching homosexuality has received.

when i mentioned to the board of governors head i was an atheist, she nearly had a heart-attack. thankfully, you don't have to be christian to work in the office...

johnriley1uk wrote:Without saying whether we agree with it or not, if we take the atatement you quote "their sexuality doesn't affect you" I would always challenge it as a "fact". Who says so? How do they know? Has the hypothesis been tested in a controlled way? It sounds rather like a slogan, which is not a fact IMHO.

Take another quote "Speed Kills". Many people accept that at face value, but if we ask "Does it?" the answer is probably no. Before stephenson's Rocket stormed down the tracks at 30mph scientists conclusively proved that at speeds above 25mph human beings would be unable to breathe and would suffocate. A fact? If speed kills then we'd better not get in a plane or even get on a train. What kills in this context is more like the rather rapid deceleration that results from hitting a wall at 100mph....This is governed by the equation force=mass x acceleration (deceleration in this case).

1. That was just an example,John. Opinions or whether you agree is not important, in this instance.
2. It is not a slogan. I don't think I've ever heard it used as such.
3. How does it affect you if somone is homosexual? No reasonable answer? Didn't think so...therefore it can be said to be proven fact, in this sense, (science is the only way to test).
4.Speed does kill. Speed is potential energy, built up by the movement of the vehicle, (or plane,train,etc). It is the transfering of this energy that causes damage, to the extent of killing someone, in certain circumstances.
5. Why look at language so literally? You saw the words "Speed Kills" and instantly seemed to think of speed personified. Imagine what the world would be like if all language were so literal. Take the Bible, as an example. Part of the problem is it is interpreted by people in so many different ways.

Mike wrote:I think that Facts can be jaded by personal opinion. Also the term Fact is thrown about lightly. This is a generalisation I know but I am always wary of the media throwing facts and figures at me. The government falls into this category too, they tend to take statistical analysis as fact. For example the world was known to be flat - Fact c1200. :?

It depends on how you define fact,IMO. In ICT, data, is the raw FACTS representing events. For example 10,13, and 12.50 may be the prices of three of the same item in three different shops.

For many, facts are proven by controlled scientific experiments. For others well....I suppose they just believe it.

TAOWBST wrote:For many, facts are proven by controlled scientific experiments. For others well....I suppose they just believe it.

Exactly my point. You can not de-personalise a scientific experiment, the person conducting the experiment has a vested interest in making it work in line with their theory. Just think how science experiments are run. Hypothosis, test, conclude.

Yes it often seems to be the case, that the person conducting th experiments has a somewhat biased perspective. So in that sense, can we really trust such facts? Should we not take facts as logic? Such as "speed kills".

Regarding the science bit: the conclusion doesn't have to match the hypothesis, which is why it's called a hypothesis. The problem comes when all scientific funding is done by industries with vested interests in the results going their way, and scientists are put under pressure to fudge it. In all honesty, it's a really shitty situation to be in.

Logic largely falls down when you deal with emotional responses to subjects that will never have a right answer. There are too many variables in how children will respond, such as with the current topic, where there are also very few facts to work with.

Logic largely falls down when you deal with emotional responses to subjects that will never have a right answer. There are too many variables in how children will respond, such as with the current topic, where there are also very few facts to work with.

Not all variables can be accounted for, in any situation. Solid "facts" are scarce in issues such as this, but should this be the only obstacle, and the sole reason to refuse such concepts?

A bit delayed as I've been away for a day (working my way through 58 messages now) but a reply to Tao's post in reply to mine.

1. Fine.
2. I just meant it sounded as if it could be a slogan. perhaps it, perhaps it isn't. Depends on the motives of whoever said it.
3. It could affect me, it equally well might not. The point I'm making is that no-one can know. If, for example, it embarrassed me it would affect me. If, for example, it offended me it would affect me. Neither of these things are true, but my point is that for any individual they could be. And, therefore, I logically conclude that the original statement is in error as it stands. This is a philosophical point, and only that, I have no intention of offending anyone....
4. Here I do disagree. I maintain speed does not kill. Inappropriate use of speed can lead to undesireable consequences, but I would maintain that is a separate issue. The slogan "Speed Kills" is useful as a simplification, but I suggest it is not accurate when examined more closely. Many things in life are like that - the more closely you look, the more difficult it is to be dogmatic.
5. Because language is all we have to communicate with. If we are sloppy with language, we are sloppy with our communication of meaning. The classic example is "Eats Shoots and Leaves" which I can think could mean at least a couple of things........

mr_e wrote:Regarding the science bit: the conclusion doesn't have to match the hypothesis, which is why it's called a hypothesis. The problem comes when all scientific funding is done by industries with vested interests in the results going their way, and scientists are put under pressure to fudge it. In all honesty, it's a really shitty situation to be in.

That is a worth point. I am also thinking that the scientists devote masses of time to calculating their theories that sometimes they can not disassociate the hypothesis from the results and try to make any result fit to their expected answer.

Just think of the electron experiments.