| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Free Lunch
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 7:16 am Post subject: Re: Louisiana Will Face Lawsuit If New Law Brings Religion I |
 |
|
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:36:17 -0700 (PDT), malcolmkirkpatrick@yahoo.com
wrote in alt.atheism:
| Quote: |
On Jun 21, 2:13 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
Of course MK also ignores the evidence that private schools that are
given vouchers do no better than public schools, all other things being
equal.
Two problems with this assertion:
1) Abundant evidence from international studies indicates otherwise,
|
So you claim. Why don't you point us to evidence?
| Quote: |
and
2) Vouchers typically provide considerably less than the NEA/AFT/
AFSCME cartels' schools per pupil budget. "Do no better" with less
money is doing better.
|
You really have to take everything into account. Your claim is still
unsubstantiated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:05 am Post subject: Re: Louisiana Will Face Lawsuit If New Law Brings Religion I |
|
|
On Jun 28, 2:16 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:36:17 -0700 (PDT), malcolmkirkpatr...@yahoo.com
wrote in alt.atheism:
On Jun 21, 2:13 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
Of course MK also ignores the evidence that private schools that are
given vouchers do no better than public schools, all other things being
equal.
Two problems with this assertion:
1) Abundant evidence from international studies indicates otherwise,
So you claim. Why don't you point us to evidence?
|
Gerard Lassibile and Lucia Navarro Gomez
"Organization and Efficiency of Educational Systems: some empirical
findings", pg. 16,
Comparative Education , Vol. 36 #1, 2000, Feb.
"Furthermore, the regression results indicate that countries where
private education is more widespread perform significantly better than
countries where it is more limited. The result showing the private
sector to be more efficient is similar to those found in other
contexts with individual data (see, for example, Psucharopoulos, 1987;
Jiminez, et. al, 1991).
This finding should convince countries to reconsider policies that
reduce the role of the private sector in the field of education".
Joshua Angrist,
"Randomized Trials and Quasi-Experiments in Education Research"
NBER Reporter, summer, 2003. http://www.nber.org/reporter/summer03/angrist.html
"One of the most controversial innovations highlighted by NCLB is
school choice. In a recently published paper,(5) my collaborators and
I studied what appears to be the largest school voucher program to
date. This program provided over 125,000 pupils from poor
neighborhoods in the country of Colombia with vouchers that covered
approximately half the cost of private secondary school. Colombia is
an especially interesting setting for testing the voucher concept
because private secondary schooling in Colombia is a widely available
and often inexpensive alternative to crowded public schools. (In
Bogota, over half of secondary school students are in private
schools.) Moreover, governments in many poor countries are
increasingly likely to experiment with demand-side education finance
programs, including vouchers.
Although not a randomized trial, a key feature of our Colombia study
is the exploitation of voucher lotteries as the basis for a quasi-
experimental research design. Because demand for vouchers exceeded
supply, the available vouchers were allocated by lottery in large
cities. Our study compares voucher applicants who won a voucher in the
lottery to those who lost. Since the lotteries used random assignment,
losers provide a good control group for winners. A comparison of
voucher winners and losers shows that three years after the lotteries
were held, winners were 15 percentage points more likely to have
attended private school and were about 10 percentage points more
likely to have finished eighth grade, primarily because they were less
likely to repeat grades. Lottery winners also scored 0.2 standard
deviations higher on standardized tests. A follow-up study in progress
shows that voucher winners also were more likely to apply to college.
On balance, our study provides some of the strongest evidence to date
for the possible benefits of demand-side financing of secondary
schooling, at least in a developing country setting."
http://econ-www.mit.edu/faculty/download_pdf.php?id=737> Angrist, et.
al., "Vouchers for Private Schooling in Colombia", AER
Joshua Angrist, "Randomized Trials and Quasi-Experiments in Education
Research",___NBER Reporter___, summer, 2003.
http://www.nber.org/reporter/summer03/angrist.html
http://www.libertyindia.org/pdfs/tooley_education.pdf
http://www.educationnext.org/20054/22.html (James Tooley on
independent schools)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1669110,00.html (James
Tooley on independent schools in Africa)
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=5563
(Tooley on development experts and private schools)
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11606 (School Reform News
on Sweden's school voucher policy)
http://www.ccsindia.org/ccsindia/pdf/corinna-paper.pdf (summary of
international evidence)
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2003/10/vouchers_in_chi.html
(Colombia and Chile)
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=583710 (another
paper on Columbia)
http://www.naringslivsforskning.se/Wfiles/wp/WP578.pdf (Sweden)
http://www1.worldbank.org/education/economicsed/finance/demand/case/denmark..pdf
(Denmark)
| Quote: |
and
2) Vouchers typically provide considerably less than the NEA/AFT/
AFSCME cartels' schools per pupil budget. "Do no better" with less
money is doing better.
You really have to take everything into account. Your claim is still
unsubstantiated.
|
No statement "take(s) everything into account". Seems to me, if
voucher-subsidized schools cost taxpayers less than the NEA/AFT/AFSCME
cartel's schools (the "public" schools) per pupil and deliver the same
level of test performance, the burden of proof is on advocates for
organized violence (State action) to justify policies which restrict
parents' options for the use of the taxpayers' K-12 subsidy to the
cartel's schools. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
RhymeCon
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 12:58 pm Post subject: Re: Louisiana Will Face Lawsuit If New Law Brings Religion I |
|
|
On Jun 17, 5:34 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Jeff Strickland" <cr...@verizon.net> wrote:
Creationists refuse to do science. They are so committed to their
religious dogma, that they cannot consider the possibility that the
doctrines they teach could be wrong. Rather than risking that outcome,
they do everything but research.
I happen to have personal experience that creationsist do do research.
Since you don't know what scientific research is, your "personal
experience" isn't worth much.
You might think otherwise, but I was once a contactor for the Institution for
Creation Research.
That may mean that you met some of the turkeys, but to be convincing,
you'll have to describe some things that they did that you think
qualify as "scientific research".
I'm not here to sell creation research, I don't give a rat's ass if you
believe it or not, but creationists do not refuse science.
They don't DO science, and they reject the conclusions of scientists
that are their betters, without evidence.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban languagewww.lojban.org
|
I know a lot of fundamentalists and in general have respect for them.
But why not ask anti-evolution fundamentalists "Why do you doubt God's
omnipotence? What makes you think he is incapable of creating the
species by using the scientific laws which he himself has created?"
I've done so but have never received anything resembling a cogent
reply. Sadly it seems to be people on both sides of this whole stupid
debate that refuse to accept at least in principle that there's
nothing to prevent someone's acceptance of evolution AND the Christian
gospel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 1:40 pm Post subject: Re: Louisiana Will Face Lawsuit If New Law Brings Religion I |
|
|
On Jun 27, 6:57 pm, malcolmkirkpatr...@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 26, 1:28 pm, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
Policies which give to State bureaucrats the power to determine what
citizens may or should believe clearly threaten democracy.
|
It does not threaten democracy for the State to require that kids
learn that 1+1=2 and the Earth is not flat.
Josh Rosenbluth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
ZerkonX
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:49 pm Post subject: Re: Louisiana Will Face Lawsuit If New Law Brings Religion I |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:57:30 +0000, Jeff Strickland wrote:
| Quote: |
God could have created all
|
Which god might that be? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Free Lunch
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 5:24 pm Post subject: Re: Louisiana Will Face Lawsuit If New Law Brings Religion I |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 03:05:58 -0700 (PDT), malcolmkirkpatrick@yahoo.com
wrote in alt.atheism:
| Quote: |
On Jun 28, 2:16 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:36:17 -0700 (PDT), malcolmkirkpatr...@yahoo.com
wrote in alt.atheism:
On Jun 21, 2:13 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
Of course MK also ignores the evidence that private schools that are
given vouchers do no better than public schools, all other things being
equal.
Two problems with this assertion:
1) Abundant evidence from international studies indicates otherwise,
So you claim. Why don't you point us to evidence?
Gerard Lassibile and Lucia Navarro Gomez
"Organization and Efficiency of Educational Systems: some empirical
findings", pg. 16,
Comparative Education , Vol. 36 #1, 2000, Feb.
"Furthermore, the regression results indicate that countries where
private education is more widespread perform significantly better than
countries where it is more limited. The result showing the private
sector to be more efficient is similar to those found in other
contexts with individual data (see, for example, Psucharopoulos, 1987;
Jiminez, et. al, 1991).
This finding should convince countries to reconsider policies that
reduce the role of the private sector in the field of education".
Joshua Angrist,
"Randomized Trials and Quasi-Experiments in Education Research"
NBER Reporter, summer, 2003. http://www.nber.org/reporter/summer03/angrist.html
"One of the most controversial innovations highlighted by NCLB is
school choice. In a recently published paper,(5) my collaborators and
I studied what appears to be the largest school voucher program to
date. This program provided over 125,000 pupils from poor
neighborhoods in the country of Colombia with vouchers that covered
approximately half the cost of private secondary school. Colombia is
an especially interesting setting for testing the voucher concept
because private secondary schooling in Colombia is a widely available
and often inexpensive alternative to crowded public schools. (In
Bogota, over half of secondary school students are in private
schools.) Moreover, governments in many poor countries are
increasingly likely to experiment with demand-side education finance
programs, including vouchers.
Although not a randomized trial, a key feature of our Colombia study
is the exploitation of voucher lotteries as the basis for a quasi-
experimental research design. Because demand for vouchers exceeded
supply, the available vouchers were allocated by lottery in large
cities. Our study compares voucher applicants who won a voucher in the
lottery to those who lost. Since the lotteries used random assignment,
losers provide a good control group for winners. A comparison of
voucher winners and losers shows that three years after the lotteries
were held, winners were 15 percentage points more likely to have
attended private school and were about 10 percentage points more
likely to have finished eighth grade, primarily because they were less
likely to repeat grades. Lottery winners also scored 0.2 standard
deviations higher on standardized tests. A follow-up study in progress
shows that voucher winners also were more likely to apply to college.
On balance, our study provides some of the strongest evidence to date
for the possible benefits of demand-side financing of secondary
schooling, at least in a developing country setting."
http://econ-www.mit.edu/faculty/download_pdf.php?id=737> Angrist, et.
al., "Vouchers for Private Schooling in Colombia", AER
Joshua Angrist, "Randomized Trials and Quasi-Experiments in Education
Research",___NBER Reporter___, summer, 2003.
http://www.nber.org/reporter/summer03/angrist.html
http://www.libertyindia.org/pdfs/tooley_education.pdf
http://www.educationnext.org/20054/22.html (James Tooley on
independent schools)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1669110,00.html (James
Tooley on independent schools in Africa)
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=5563
(Tooley on development experts and private schools)
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11606 (School Reform News
on Sweden's school voucher policy)
http://www.ccsindia.org/ccsindia/pdf/corinna-paper.pdf (summary of
international evidence)
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2003/10/vouchers_in_chi.html
(Colombia and Chile)
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=583710 (another
paper on Columbia)
http://www.naringslivsforskning.se/Wfiles/wp/WP578.pdf (Sweden)
http://www1.worldbank.org/education/economicsed/finance/demand/case/denmark.pdf
(Denmark)
and
2) Vouchers typically provide considerably less than the NEA/AFT/
AFSCME cartels' schools per pupil budget. "Do no better" with less
money is doing better.
You really have to take everything into account. Your claim is still
unsubstantiated.
No statement "take(s) everything into account". Seems to me, if
voucher-subsidized schools cost taxpayers less than the NEA/AFT/AFSCME
cartel's schools (the "public" schools) per pupil and deliver the same
level of test performance, the burden of proof is on advocates for
organized violence (State action) to justify policies which restrict
parents' options for the use of the taxpayers' K-12 subsidy to the
cartel's schools.
|
That is your assertion. Please show me the voucher schools that are
providing these results with a matching cross-section of students. Show
me a school that accepts all comers, no matter what difficulties or
handicaps the children have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Free Lunch
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 5:48 pm Post subject: Re: Louisiana Will Face Lawsuit If New Law Brings Religion I |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 03:05:58 -0700 (PDT), malcolmkirkpatrick@yahoo.com
wrote in alt.atheism:
| Quote: |
On Jun 28, 2:16 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:36:17 -0700 (PDT), malcolmkirkpatr...@yahoo.com
wrote in alt.atheism:
On Jun 21, 2:13 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
Of course MK also ignores the evidence that private schools that are
given vouchers do no better than public schools, all other things being
equal.
Two problems with this assertion:
1) Abundant evidence from international studies indicates otherwise,
So you claim. Why don't you point us to evidence?
Gerard Lassibile and Lucia Navarro Gomez
"Organization and Efficiency of Educational Systems: some empirical
findings", pg. 16,
Comparative Education , Vol. 36 #1, 2000, Feb.
"Furthermore, the regression results indicate that countries where
private education is more widespread perform significantly better than
countries where it is more limited. The result showing the private
sector to be more efficient is similar to those found in other
contexts with individual data (see, for example, Psucharopoulos, 1987;
Jiminez, et. al, 1991).
|
Is correlation causation?
| Quote: |
This finding should convince countries to reconsider policies that
reduce the role of the private sector in the field of education".
|
Why?
He talks about an incentive program for children who finish high school.
| Quote: |
"One of the most controversial innovations highlighted by NCLB is
school choice. In a recently published paper,(5) my collaborators and
I studied what appears to be the largest school voucher program to
date. This program provided over 125,000 pupils from poor
neighborhoods in the country of Colombia with vouchers that covered
approximately half the cost of private secondary school. Colombia is
an especially interesting setting for testing the voucher concept
because private secondary schooling in Colombia is a widely available
and often inexpensive alternative to crowded public schools. (In
Bogota, over half of secondary school students are in private
schools.) Moreover, governments in many poor countries are
increasingly likely to experiment with demand-side education finance
programs, including vouchers.
Although not a randomized trial, a key feature of our Colombia study
is the exploitation of voucher lotteries as the basis for a quasi-
experimental research design. Because demand for vouchers exceeded
supply, the available vouchers were allocated by lottery in large
cities. Our study compares voucher applicants who won a voucher in the
lottery to those who lost. Since the lotteries used random assignment,
losers provide a good control group for winners. A comparison of
voucher winners and losers shows that three years after the lotteries
were held, winners were 15 percentage points more likely to have
attended private school and were about 10 percentage points more
likely to have finished eighth grade, primarily because they were less
likely to repeat grades. Lottery winners also scored 0.2 standard
deviations higher on standardized tests.
|
Were they tested before the lottery?
| Quote: |
A follow-up study in progress
shows that voucher winners also were more likely to apply to college.
On balance, our study provides some of the strongest evidence to date
for the possible benefits of demand-side financing of secondary
schooling, at least in a developing country setting."
|
Notice that his conclusion is not that private schools are better.
| Quote: |
http://econ-www.mit.edu/faculty/download_pdf.php?id=737> Angrist, et.
al., "Vouchers for Private Schooling in Colombia", AER
Joshua Angrist, "Randomized Trials and Quasi-Experiments in Education
Research",___NBER Reporter___, summer, 2003.
|
The PDF wouldn't load.
| Quote: |
http://www.nber.org/reporter/summer03/angrist.html
|
you already gave us that one.
| Quote: |
http://www.libertyindia.org/pdfs/tooley_education.pdf
|
Hardly a social science journal or properly tested study. Are the
schools better per dollar? If so, why? or is the performance better
because the private schools don't have the same standards, can pay their
teachers less because of a religious motivation on the part of the
teacher (see Catholic parochial schools in the US as an example)? What
causes it?
Tooley is a political opponent of public schools. I get that. Let's see
his actual research.
| Quote: |
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11606 (School Reform News
on Sweden's school voucher policy)
|
Details are lacking.
| Quote: |
http://www.ccsindia.org/ccsindia/pdf/corinna-paper.pdf (summary of
international evidence)
|
Interesting, but as you will note, the paper doesn't tell us if the
vouchers in the US actually improve education.
Thank you for the references. They may not be papers that were properly
written to meet the standards of a social science journal, but they are
good advocacy. They also don't address your actual claim. Yes, many
parents are choosing vouchers and there are places that school results
have gotten better. The articles seem to imply that there was more money
in total made available than had been available previously. Am I correct
on that?
[the rest was answered elsewhere] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 5:50 pm Post subject: Re: Louisiana Will Face Lawsuit If New Law Brings Religion I |
|
|
On Jun 28, 12:48 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 03:05:58 -0700 (PDT), malcolmkirkpatr...@yahoo.com
wrote in alt.atheism:
On Jun 28, 2:16 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:36:17 -0700 (PDT), malcolmkirkpatr...@yahoo.com
wrote in alt.atheism:
On Jun 21, 2:13 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
Of course MK also ignores the evidence that private schools that are
given vouchers do no better than public schools, all other things being
equal.
|
Let's have evidence FOR the assertion "that private schools that are
given vouchers do no better than the public schools, all other things
being equal".
| Quote: |
Two problems with this assertion:
1) Abundant evidence from international studies indicates otherwise,
So you claim. Why don't you point us to evidence?
Discussion deleted (Lassibile and Gomez).
Is correlation causation?
A. This is evidence. |
B. Here's Russell on Hume: "Hume's scepticism rests on his rejection
of the principle of induction. The principle of induction, as applied
to causation, says that, if A has been found very often accompanied or
followed by B, and no instance is known of A not being accompanied or
followed by B, then it is probable that on the next occasion on which
A is observed it will be accompanied or followed by B. If the
principle is to be adequate, a sufficient number of instances must
make the probability not far short of certainty. If this principle, or
any other form from which it can be deduced, is true, then the causal
inferences which Hume rejects are valid, not indeed as giving
certainty, but as giving a sufficient probability for practical
purposes. If this principle is not true, every attempt to arrive at
general scientific laws from particular observations is fallacious,
and Hume's scepticism is inescapable for an empiricist."
We learn the meaning of words by observing instances of their use. So,
basically, correlation or something like it is what we mean by
"cause".
| Quote: |
(Lassibile and Gomez): "This finding should convince countries to reconsider > > policies that reduce the role of the private sector in the field of education".
Why?
|
Voucher-subsidized markets in education services outperform State-
monopoly school systems. The Cold War is over. Your side lost.
Discussion deleted (Joshua Angrist, "Randomized Trials and Quasi-
Experiments in Education Research" NBER Reporter, summer, 2003.http://
www.nber.org/reporter/summer03/angrist.html)
| Quote: |
He talks about an incentive program for children who finish high school.
|
The Columbia voucher lottery was a pre-college tuition voucher.
Discussion deleted...
| Quote: |
Were they tested before the lottery?
|
Basic Statistics. It was a random assignment and a large sample.
| Quote: |
A follow-up study in progress
shows that voucher winners also were more likely to apply to college.
On balance, our study provides some of the strongest evidence to date
for the possible benefits of demand-side financing of secondary
schooling, at least in a developing country setting."
Notice that his conclusion is not that private schools are better.
|
Students who won the voucher lottery score higher on standardized
tests and were more likely to apply for college. What meaning of
"better" excludes these results?
| Quote: |
http://www.libertyindia.org/pdfs/tooley_education.pdf
Hardly a social science journal or properly tested study. Are the
schools better per dollar? If so, why? or is the performance better
because the private schools don't have the same standards, can pay their
teachers less because of a religious motivation on the part of the
teacher (see Catholic parochial schools in the US as an example)? What
causes it?
|
You asked for evidence. Here it is.
You want the raw data? Or need he parade the students before you? You
get the results here. You asked for evidence. Here it is.
| Quote: |
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11606(School Reform News
on Sweden's school voucher policy)
Details are lacking.
|
You asked for evidence. Here it is.
http://www.ccsindia.org/ccsindia/pdf/corinna-paper.pdf(summary of
| Quote: |
international evidence)
Interesting, but as you will note, the paper doesn't tell us if the
vouchers in the US actually improve education.
|
According to Harvard Economist Caroline Hoxby, they do.
| Quote: |
Thank you for the references. They may not be papers that were properly
written to meet the standards of a social science journal, but they are
good advocacy. They also don't address your actual claim.
|
Again, let's have evidence FOR the assertion "that private schools
that are given vouchers do no better than the public schools, all
other things being equal".
| Quote: |
Yes, many parents are choosing vouchers and there are places that school
results have gotten better. The articles seem to imply that there was more
money in total made available than had been available previously. Am I correct
on that?
|
The Lassibile and Gomez paper indicates that voucher-subsidized
markets deliver higher performance at lower cost than State-monopoly
school systems. Herman Brutsaert's comparison of State (government,
generally) schools and parochial schools in Belgium (which subsidized
parent choice of schools at a level nearly equal to the per-pupil
budget of State schools) found higher mean scores and a lower
correlation between parent income and student test scores. State
schools exacerbate inequality. Political control of school harms most
the children of the least politically adept parents. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
SkyEyes
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:02 pm Post subject: Re: Louisiana Will Face Lawsuit If New Law Brings Religion I |
|
|
On Jun 28, 5:58 am, RhymeCon <b...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 17, 5:34 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
"Jeff Strickland" <cr...@verizon.net> wrote:
Creationists refuse to do science. They are so committed to their
religious dogma, that they cannot consider the possibility that the
doctrines they teach could be wrong. Rather than risking that outcome,
they do everything but research.
I happen to have personal experience that creationsist do do research.
Since you don't know what scientific research is, your "personal
experience" isn't worth much.
You might think otherwise, but I was once a contactor for the Institution for
Creation Research.
That may mean that you met some of the turkeys, but to be convincing,
you'll have to describe some things that they did that you think
qualify as "scientific research".
I'm not here to sell creation research, I don't give a rat's ass if you
believe it or not, but creationists do not refuse science.
They don't DO science, and they reject the conclusions of scientists
that are their betters, without evidence.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban languagewww.lojban.org
I know a lot of fundamentalists and in general have respect for them.
But why not ask anti-evolution fundamentalists "Why do you doubt God's
omnipotence? What makes you think he is incapable of creating the
species by using the scientific laws which he himself has created?"
I've done so but have never received anything resembling a cogent
reply. Sadly it seems to be people on both sides of this whole stupid
debate that refuse to accept at least in principle that there's
nothing to prevent someone's acceptance of evolution AND the Christian
gospel.
|
I grew up christian fundamentalist (Conservative Baptist) and a
creationist; here's what they told me. It all hinges on salvation.
If every word of the bible *isn't* literally true, including Genesis,
then that casts doubt on the veracity of the recipe for salvation -
accepting Jesus as your personal savior, etc., etc. And make no
mistake, they can't deal with the notion that there's no everlasting
life in hebbin with gawd after death, so salvation *must* be a valid
concept! And so the A&E story has to be factual, or else how did sin
come into the world, and why would we need saving?
It all hinges on their fear of having to die and be dead forever.
They will go to any lengths to invent a mythology that will offer them
a way out of that. The denial of evolution is just a collateral
argument to that.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:19 pm Post subject: Re: Louisiana Will Face Lawsuit If New Law Brings Religion I |
|
|
On Jun 28, 12:48 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 03:05:58 -0700 (PDT), malcolmkirkpatr...@yahoo.com
wrote in alt.atheism:
On Jun 28, 2:16 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:36:17 -0700 (PDT), malcolmkirkpatr...@yahoo.com
wrote in alt.atheism:
On Jun 21, 2:13 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
Of course MK also ignores the evidence that private schools that are
given vouchers do no better than public schools, all other things being
equal.
Two problems with this assertion:
1) Abundant evidence from international studies indicates otherwise,
So you claim. Why don't you point us to evidence?
|
Discussion deleted...
| Quote: |
http://www.libertyindia.org/pdfs/tooley_education.pdf
Hardly a social science journal or properly tested study. Are the
schools better per dollar? If so, why? or is the performance better
because the private schools don't have the same standards, can pay their
teachers less because of a religious motivation on the part of the
teacher (see Catholic parochial schools in the US as an example)? What
causes it?
|
It's a summary of his research. As to "why" private schools are better
per dollar, what difference would any answer to that question make? If
compulsory attendance and a limited range of education options means
disruption in State (government, generally) schools and consqeuently a
requirement that State school teachers receive combat pay, that is an
argument for widening the range of education options available to
parents and students (and real classroom teachers) and/or reducing
compulsion. If teachers in Church-operated schools take part of their
compensation in "psychic" income (they're doung the Lord's work), so
much the better for taxpayers. Why is this a problem? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 7:31 pm Post subject: Re: Louisiana Will Face Lawsuit If New Law Brings Religion I |
|
|
On Jun 28, 6:47 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 11:19:58 -0700 (PDT), malcolmkirkpatr...@yahoo.com
wrote in alt.atheism:
Discussion deleted...
(lunch): "...Are the
schools better per dollar? If so, why? or is the performance better
because the private schools don't have the same standards, can pay their
teachers less because of a religious motivation on the part of the
teacher (see Catholic parochial schools in the US as an example)? What
causes it?
(MK): "...As to "why" private schools are better
per dollar, what difference would any answer to that question make? If
compulsory attendance and a limited range of education options means
disruption in State (government, generally) schools and consqeuently a
requirement that State school teachers receive combat pay, that is an
argument for widening the range of education options available to
parents and students (and real classroom teachers) and/or reducing
compulsion. If teachers in Church-operated schools take part of their
compensation in "psychic" income (they're doung the Lord's work), so
much the better for taxpayers. Why is this a problem?
It reminds me of the claim that outsourcing is more efficient for lower
level jobs in the government. It's not, the janitors are just paid a lot
less and treated more badly by the outsourcing contractor, the actual
efficiency may have decreased.
|
" (Not) more efficienct" requires a comparison of cost/benefit ratios.
Outsourcing (with competitive bidding) is frequently more efficient,
since policies which reserve taxpayers' subsidies to a single supplier
often create a self-dealing class of insiders (e.g., State school
teachers, school construction contractors, textbook publishers). See
the essay on the economics of vouchers in
C. Eugene Steuerle, et. al
Vouchers and the Provision of Public Services (Brookings, 2000)
http://www.brookings.edu/press/books/vouchers.htm
See also Jack Hirschliefer,
"Anarchy and its Breakdown"
Journal of Political Economy
See also Mancur Olsen
"The End of the Middle Way"
American Economic Review
See also Roger Axelrod
The Evolution of Cooperation
John Derbyshire,
New English Review, Dec. 2006
"The Dream Palace of Educational Theorists"
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=4844&sec_id=4844
http://www.ipi.org/ipi/IPIPublications.nsf/PublicationLookupFullText
No Voice,No Exit: The Inefficiency of America's Schools
School Corruption
http://www.diesel-ebooks.com/cgi-bin/item/059580988X
Neal McClusky on corruption in schools
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa542.pdf
http://www.ednews.org/articles/3721/1/The-Reality-of-School-Corruption/Page1.html
Maurice Callaway
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/press/files/pdffiles/CallawayMistercomplaintFINAL.pdf
James Pressley
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/press/files/pdffiles/PressleycomplaintFINAL.pdf
Rafael Valez
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/press/files/pdffiles/VelezcomplaintFINAL.pdf
Jayson Adams
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/press/files/pdffiles/AdamscomplaintFINAL.pdf
James McCormick
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/press/files/pdffiles/McCormickcomplaintFINAL.pdf
Eduardo Zambrano
Formal Models of Authority: Introduction and Political Economy
Applications
Rationality and Society, May 1999; 11: 115 - 138.
"Aside from the important issue of how it is that a ruler may
economize on communication, contracting and coercion costs, this leads
to an interpretation of the state that cannot be contractarian in
nature: citizens would not empower a ruler to solve collective action
problems in any of the models discussed, for the ruler would always be
redundant and costly. The results support a view of the state that is
eminently predatory, (the ? MK.) case in which whether the collective
actions problems are solved by the state or not depends on upon
whether this is consistent with the objectives and opportunities of
those with the (natural) monopoly of violence in society. This
conclusion is also reached in a model of a predatory state by Moselle
and Polak (1997). How the theory of economic policy changes in light
of this interpretation is an important question left for further work.
[Eduardo Zambrano, "Formal Models of Authority", Rationality and
Society, V.11, #2.
May, 1999]. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:23 pm Post subject: Re: Louisiana Will Face Lawsuit If New Law Brings Religion I |
|
|
On Jun 28, 6:35 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:50:32 -0700 (PDT), malcolmkirkpatr...@yahoo.com
wrote in alt.atheism:
On Jun 28, 12:48 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 03:05:58 -0700 (PDT), malcolmkirkpatr...@yahoo.com
wrote in alt.atheism:
On Jun 28, 2:16 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:36:17 -0700 (PDT), malcolmkirkpatr...@yahoo.com
wrote in alt.atheism:
On Jun 21, 2:13 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
Of course MK also ignores the evidence that private schools that are
given vouchers do no better than public schools, all other things being
equal.
Let's have evidence FOR the assertion "that private schools that are
given vouchers do no better than the public schools, all other things
being equal".
Properly formed tests assume there is no difference. Assuming that one
is better than the other is an invalid method.
"Properly formed tests" of what? If we investigate the question of |
whether policies which subsidize competitive markets in education
services outperform policies which restrict parents' options to a
single supplier, would it make sense to suppose --in advance-- any one
result of the three possibilities: 1) advantage, State monopoly, 2)
Advantage, competitive markets, 3) no difference?
| Quote: |
Two problems with this assertion:
1) Abundant evidence from international studies indicates otherwise,
So you claim. Why don't you point us to evidence?
Discussion deleted (Lassibile and Gomez).
Discussion deleted (basic Philosophy of Science).
(Lassibile and Gomez): "This finding should convince countries to reconsider > > policies that reduce the role of the private sector in the field of education".
Why?
Voucher-subsidized markets in education services outperform State-
monopoly school systems. The Cold War is over. Your side lost.
Discussion deleted (no rebuttal beyond "you don't understand". Same to |
you).
| Quote: |
Discussion deleted (Joshua Angrist, "Randomized Trials and Quasi-
Experiments in Education Research" NBER Reporter, summer, 2003.http://
www.nber.org/reporter/summer03/angrist.html)
He talks about an incentive program for children who finish high school.
The Columbia voucher lottery was a pre-college tuition voucher.
Discussion deleted...
Were they tested before the lottery?
Basic Statistics. It was a random assignment and a large sample.
Sorry, but you cannot claim ex post that there really was a random
assignment normally distributed if you didn't test it.
The lottery was a random assignment. With the numbers involved, it's |
highly unlikely the distribution of characteristics in the two
populations (lottery winners and lottery losers) would be different to
any level of statistical significance. Since there is always the
possibility of hidden variables, that's the point of large samples.
| Quote: |
A follow-up study in progress
shows that voucher winners also were more likely to apply to college.
On balance, our study provides some of the strongest evidence to date
for the possible benefits of demand-side financing of secondary
schooling, at least in a developing country setting."
Notice that his conclusion is not that private schools are better.
Students who won the voucher lottery score higher on standardized
tests and were more likely to apply for college. What meaning of
"better" excludes these results?
What other inputs were involved? You need to deal with everything, not
just vaguely assume that you really have a proper test.
I had deleted this... |
(FL): "By the way, I'm not an opponent of voucher, I am an opponent of
fake
free-marketers who don't think they ever have to provide evidence to
back up their claims once they've claimed that it's a free market
solution. I am completely open to persuasion. You are doing your best
to
drive me away from supporting vouchers."
| Quote: |
This impossible condition: "you have to deal with everything" |
indicates that the above doesn't represent the real FL position.
Social Science journals: the Journal of Political Economy, American
Economic Review, Comparative Education, Rationality and Society, The
World Bank Research Observer, etc. Tooley is an academic. Before I'll
believe that Tooley misrepresents his results, I'll need contrary
evidence.
| Quote: |
Are you a creationist, too?
|
I wrote before: "I'm a devout materialist. I was raised in no church.
Russell, Quine, Dennett, Dawwin, Dawkins, all the way". Got any
argument other than inuendo and open ad hominem?
Discussion deleted...
| Quote: |
Again, let's have evidence FOR the assertion "that private schools
that are given vouchers do no better than the public schools, all
other things being equal".
You keep repeating that mantra. Do you also insist that no one has
proven that God doesn't exist? You must know that the test is always to
start with the assumption that there is no difference.
In which case, what's the argument FOR the application of organized |
violence (the State) to force children into a State-monopoly school
system?
| Quote: |
Discussion deleted...
Interesting, but as you will note, the paper doesn't tell us if the
vouchers in the US actually improve education.
According to Harvard Economist Caroline Hoxby, they do.
The studies are mixed. The quality of the studies is also a problem. The
Hoxby one has been strongly critiqued.
Hoxby has published numerous studies, so "one" is silly. "(H)as been |
strongly critiqued" doesn't say much. So has Darwin. "Are you a
Creationist, too?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Free Lunch
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:35 pm Post subject: Re: Louisiana Will Face Lawsuit If New Law Brings Religion I |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:50:32 -0700 (PDT), malcolmkirkpatrick@yahoo.com
wrote in alt.atheism:
| Quote: |
On Jun 28, 12:48 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 03:05:58 -0700 (PDT), malcolmkirkpatr...@yahoo.com
wrote in alt.atheism:
On Jun 28, 2:16 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:36:17 -0700 (PDT), malcolmkirkpatr...@yahoo.com
wrote in alt.atheism:
On Jun 21, 2:13 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
Of course MK also ignores the evidence that private schools that are
given vouchers do no better than public schools, all other things being
equal.
Let's have evidence FOR the assertion "that private schools that are
given vouchers do no better than the public schools, all other things
being equal".
|
Properly formed tests assume there is no difference. Assuming that one
is better than the other is an invalid method.
| Quote: |
Two problems with this assertion:
1) Abundant evidence from international studies indicates otherwise,
So you claim. Why don't you point us to evidence?
Discussion deleted (Lassibile and Gomez).
Is correlation causation?
A. This is evidence.
B. Here's Russell on Hume: "Hume's scepticism rests on his rejection
of the principle of induction. The principle of induction, as applied
to causation, says that, if A has been found very often accompanied or
followed by B, and no instance is known of A not being accompanied or
followed by B, then it is probable that on the next occasion on which
A is observed it will be accompanied or followed by B. If the
principle is to be adequate, a sufficient number of instances must
make the probability not far short of certainty. If this principle, or
any other form from which it can be deduced, is true, then the causal
inferences which Hume rejects are valid, not indeed as giving
certainty, but as giving a sufficient probability for practical
purposes. If this principle is not true, every attempt to arrive at
general scientific laws from particular observations is fallacious,
and Hume's scepticism is inescapable for an empiricist."
We learn the meaning of words by observing instances of their use. So,
basically, correlation or something like it is what we mean by
"cause".
|
Your reading of the discussion is problematic.
Many things are correlated that have no causative relationship. On days
that children go sledding, the lights are on longer than average. Does
sledding cause lights to be used more?
| Quote: |
(Lassibile and Gomez): "This finding should convince countries to reconsider > > policies that reduce the role of the private sector in the field of education".
Why?
Voucher-subsidized markets in education services outperform State-
monopoly school systems. The Cold War is over. Your side lost.
|
You don't understand how to explain why.
By the way, I'm not an opponent of voucher, I am an opponent of fake
free-marketers who don't think they ever have to provide evidence to
back up their claims once they've claimed that it's a free market
solution. I am completely open to persuasion. You are doing your best to
drive me away from supporting vouchers.
| Quote: |
Discussion deleted (Joshua Angrist, "Randomized Trials and Quasi-
Experiments in Education Research" NBER Reporter, summer, 2003.http://
www.nber.org/reporter/summer03/angrist.html)
He talks about an incentive program for children who finish high school.
The Columbia voucher lottery was a pre-college tuition voucher.
Discussion deleted...
Were they tested before the lottery?
Basic Statistics. It was a random assignment and a large sample.
|
Sorry, but you cannot claim ex post that there really was a random
assignment normally distributed if you didn't test it.
| Quote: |
A follow-up study in progress
shows that voucher winners also were more likely to apply to college.
On balance, our study provides some of the strongest evidence to date
for the possible benefits of demand-side financing of secondary
schooling, at least in a developing country setting."
Notice that his conclusion is not that private schools are better.
Students who won the voucher lottery score higher on standardized
tests and were more likely to apply for college. What meaning of
"better" excludes these results?
|
What other inputs were involved? You need to deal with everything, not
just vaguely assume that you really have a proper test.
| Quote: |
http://www.libertyindia.org/pdfs/tooley_education.pdf
Hardly a social science journal or properly tested study. Are the
schools better per dollar? If so, why? or is the performance better
because the private schools don't have the same standards, can pay their
teachers less because of a religious motivation on the part of the
teacher (see Catholic parochial schools in the US as an example)? What
causes it?
You asked for evidence. Here it is.
http://www.educationnext.org/20054/22.html(James Tooley on
independent schools)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1669110,00.html(James
Tooley on independent schools in Africa)
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=5563
(Tooley on development experts and private schools)
Tooley is a political opponent of public schools. I get that. Let's see
his actual research.
You want the raw data? Or need he parade the students before you? You
get the results here. You asked for evidence. Here it is.
|
So, you have no use for science journals. Are you a creationist, too?
| Quote: |
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11606(School Reform News
on Sweden's school voucher policy)
Details are lacking.
You asked for evidence. Here it is.
http://www.ccsindia.org/ccsindia/pdf/corinna-paper.pdf(summary of
international evidence)
Interesting, but as you will note, the paper doesn't tell us if the
vouchers in the US actually improve education.
According to Harvard Economist Caroline Hoxby, they do.
|
The studies are mixed. The quality of the studies is also a problem. The
Hoxby one has been strongly critiqued.
| Quote: |
Thank you for the references. They may not be papers that were properly
written to meet the standards of a social science journal, but they are
good advocacy. They also don't address your actual claim.
Again, let's have evidence FOR the assertion "that private schools
that are given vouchers do no better than the public schools, all
other things being equal".
|
You keep repeating that mantra. Do you also insist that no one has
proven that God doesn't exist? You must know that the test is always to
start with the assumption that there is no difference.
| Quote: |
Yes, many parents are choosing vouchers and there are places that school
results have gotten better. The articles seem to imply that there was more
money in total made available than had been available previously. Am I correct
on that?
The Lassibile and Gomez paper indicates that voucher-subsidized
markets deliver higher performance at lower cost than State-monopoly
school systems. Herman Brutsaert's comparison of State (government,
generally) schools and parochial schools in Belgium (which subsidized
parent choice of schools at a level nearly equal to the per-pupil
budget of State schools) found higher mean scores and a lower
correlation between parent income and student test scores. State
schools exacerbate inequality. Political control of school harms most
the children of the least politically adept parents.
|
That is one interpretation of the results, but there is the serious
problem that in many ways parochial schools are more homogeneous than
public schools. It would be interesting to see how they normalized the
data. I don't see the reference to Herman Brutsaert's article so I don't
know what to make of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Free Lunch
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:47 pm Post subject: Re: Louisiana Will Face Lawsuit If New Law Brings Religion I |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 11:19:58 -0700 (PDT), malcolmkirkpatrick@yahoo.com
wrote in alt.atheism:
| Quote: |
On Jun 28, 12:48 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 03:05:58 -0700 (PDT), malcolmkirkpatr...@yahoo.com
wrote in alt.atheism:
On Jun 28, 2:16 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:36:17 -0700 (PDT), malcolmkirkpatr...@yahoo.com
wrote in alt.atheism:
On Jun 21, 2:13 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
Of course MK also ignores the evidence that private schools that are
given vouchers do no better than public | | | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
