My daughter's class was given this article in science class

[jpargana]

The more I think about this, the angrier I become. This is nothing less than fanatics indoctrinating children into their ideology, and it is unconscionable. And these particular children are going to come away from this exercise believing that that article is scientifically sound. Why? Because their science teacher assigned it. I am disgusted.

(Somewhat to this point, I read a recent article about a local hearing on a ban-ecigs ordinance. The tobacco control lobby actually recruited *children* to appear at the hearing and testify that they wanted ecigs to be banned. A new and beyond contemptible "save the chiiiildren" tactic.)

It would be quite instructive to ask those children exactly why do they want e-cigs banned... and where did they learn about the dangers of the e-cig!

Yep... that experiment would be real science... a good study about the parroting, at an early age, of junk science!

 

[jpargana]

My children were taught to respect their teachers. They were also taught that teachers are not infallible. That the respectful and mature way of dealing with such assignments is to do what the teacher asks, BUT to go the extra and include the correct information with sources. I've had to go in for meetings a few times. I keep it simple and ask

1. Did my child do the assignment? "Yes, but..." (then grade on the assignment)

2. Did he/she provide the sources to back up the disagreement? "Yes, but..."

3. Was he/she disrespectful? "No, but ..."

4. So you called me in because you have a problem with the fact my child went above and beyond, doing additional research and as a result, is respectfully offering you additional information that does not rely questionable, outdated or inaccurate information on the subject?

That usually ends it right there.

As it should !!




Many of those teachers, just like ANTZ 'authorities', are not used to be challenged about all the B.S. they make up... a reaction like the one you described above usually unbalances them.

 

[jpargana]

(...)

I remember in about 1979, my little sister acquired the habit of hectically waving her hand in front of her face as soon as somebody lit up a cigarette. She did that in my house once. I told her to stop this nonsense or leave my house. As I was having none of that. That put a stop to it right there and then. At least in my company and in my house. Period.

(...)

 

[Traver]

I know I am sticking my neck on the shopping block with this so go ahead and shop away.

I will probably be highlighting and indexing all of the inaccuracies in this article, attaching relevant studies, and giving it back to the teacher with MY synopsis. It will probably be something along the lines of: "I would expect a SCIENCE class to utilize science-backed articles, not opinion pieces full of faulty information."

This is not a scientific article and it may not belong in a science class but I don't see where it is factually inaccurate. It is a mixture of incomplete and biased reporting but that is not the same thing as factually inaccurate.
I firmly believe that the most valuable lesson you, her science teacher or science can teach your daughter is to question and think for hersefl.

The new study, published in Friday's edition of the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, is based on data from the National Youth tobacco Survey. It found that 1.1% of students in grades 6 through 8 were using e-cigarettes at least once a month, as were 2.8% of students in grades 9 to 12.

Among these regular e-cigarette users, 76.3% also smoked traditional cigarettes. But the report's authors — from the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products and the CDC's Office on Smoking and Health — expressed particular concern about students who had used e-cigarettes but had not yet tried conventional cigarettes. The researchers estimated that 160,000 students across the country fell into that category.

Is anyone disputing that the National Youth Tobacco Survey actually said this.

The American Lung Assn. has been a consistent advocate for FDA regulation of e-cigarettes.

"When you see cotton candy, bubble gum and atomic fireball flavors, there's no question these products are being marketed directly at kids," said Erika Sward, the group's vice president for national advocacy. "I think this data really shows our concerns are real."

Does anyone dispute the fact that The American Lung Assn. has been a consistent advocate for FDA regulation of e-cigarettes.

Or that Erika Sward that did not say this.
"When you see cotton candy, bubble gum and atomic fireball flavors, there's no question these products are being marketed directly at kids," said Erika Sward, the group's vice president for national advocacy. "I think this data really shows our concerns are real."

If I missed something that is factually wrong I don't mind hearing about.

If this article is being presented as science and not be questioned I would find that disturbing. I would find even more disturbing if this teacher is saying that science shouldn't be questioned. Without those questions there would be no science.

 

[Anjaffm]

@Traver:

If this article is being presented as science and not be questioned I would find that disturbing. I would find even more disturbing if this teacher is saying that science shouldn't be questioned. Without those questions there would be no science.

I think that is the whole point.
At least I have not seen the OP stating that the teacher who made the students read this junk in a "science" class (!) has also offered a different viewpoint (accurate viewpoint / scientific facts) for the students to read. And then compare / discuss / come to conclusions.

In the absence of education on the actual scientific facts, making the students read such junk and blathering in a "science" class is pure indoctrination, to my mind.

You know, like "politics" classes in the former Eastern Bloc "taught" students that Communism was the only way to go and resulted in happiness and prosperity and equality and intellectual freedom for all?

/ edit:
thank you very much, AgentAnia

And yes, that last sentence (that was edited in) was very much necessary.

Making students read an article full of BS and lies and then summarize it would be just as "truthful" in "education" as making them read "Little Red Riding Hood" and summarize it. Taking away the "knowledge" that wolves can talk and swallow people whole.

 

[AgentAnia]

Traver, it's early morning still for me and the brain is not fully activated, so I'm not sure whether to term your post as nitpicking or hair-splitting. As an example: The fact that the article correctly quotes Erica Sward is not in question. The point is that what Sward says is, to use a technical term, hooey.

"When you see cotton candy, bubble gum and atomic fireball flavors, there's no question these products are being marketed directly at kids," said Erika Sward...

We all know this statement is BS, don't we? And yet the article, by quoting her without rebuttal, implies that this is fact. Certainly it would be taken as such by relatively naive seventh graders.

You simply cannot state that because an article or any media product correctly quotes a source, it is a factually accurate article. Au contraire.

:going for coffee replenishment and a calming vape:

 

[AgentAnia]

Anja, clearly you're ahead of me on the caffeine curve this morning (maybe due to time zone differences?). Your reply to Traver gets my

 

[Fulgurant]

I know I am sticking my neck on the shopping block with this so go ahead and shop away.

Oh, I wouldn't expend the effort. Instead I'll just ask; what is your point? Do you think it's acceptable for grade-school science teachers to pass off non-scientific political hit pieces as legitimate subjects of study?

Nothing said in the article by the news reporter herself was inaccurate, but most of the quotes were deliberately misleading, obviously unsupportable in many cases -- and the author didn't question them or offer any dissenting views from other sources. The LA Times story, if you can call it a story, is actually a perfect example of what journalists shouldn't do. If the OP's daughter were taking a journalism class and the professor assigned students with the task of ripping the story to shreds, then that'd be ok.

In any other situation, the story is entirely bereft of academic value.

 

[AgentAnia]

Linden, I now have a much better idea of your school, your community, and your personal viewpoint here, and I second Sane Asylum's suggestion, though I would be more inclined to provide hardcopy of my response, either by snail mail or in person (no need to engage in discussion if that's not your wish, simply drop it on his/her desk) as well as emailing it. But only you can judge the dynamic between you, your daughter, and the teacher.

I for one support you fully, however you wish to proceed!

 

[jtpjc]

Carl Phillips hits on a point that give 'statistics' a bad name:

"You are with me there right? An 11th grader, in 2011, who tried an ecigarette in the 10th grade is still part of the "ever tried" group when he is in the 12th grade in 2012. If one of his classmates tried one for the first time in the 11th grade, he joins his friend in the "ever tried" group in 2012. Though the rate of trying was the same for this two person population each year, the "ever tried" statistic DOUBLED!!!!" (my emphasis)

If they would compare just the 'first tried' of 2011 and 2012, the statistic remains the same. If another person tries in 2012 and they all go to the same college in 2013 the statistic would triple

So we just have to wait till the statistic hits 150% or something. Or, I don't know, the number of kids ever to have tried an ecig exceeds 25 trillion. Maybe then some eyebrows will raise.

 

[Anjaffm]

Anja, clearly you're ahead of me on the caffeine curve this morning (maybe due to time zone differences?). Your reply to Traver gets my

Thank you, dear
It's the time difference - I wrote that posting at 17:07 my time (Germany)
And Fulgurant is right on the dot, too

The LA Times story, if you can call it a story, is actually a perfect example of what journalists shouldn't do. If the OP's daughter were taking a journalism class and the professor assigned students with the task of ripping the story to shreds, then that'd be ok.

In any other situation, the story is entirely bereft of academic value.

precisely!

 

[Traver]

Traver, it's early morning still for me and the brain is not fully activated, so I'm not sure whether to term your post as nitpicking or hair-splitting. As an example: The fact that the article correctly quotes Erica Sward is not in question. The point is that what Sward says is, to use a technical term, hooey.

You may be right.

When I read an article that is factually accurate and someone in a cause I believe in says it is not it bothers me. I'm not sure why. I should be used to and let it go. Maybe it is because when I see the other side doing the same thing does it nothing to change my opinion. If anything it does just the opposite. If the OP is going to criticize this to the teacher or the school she should not say the article is wrong or inaccurate because they will not see it that way. To say it incomplete or that it is cherry picking the facts would get a better reception.

What really disturbs about this is not the article but the fact that her daughter's teacher in a science class hasn't taught her to be comfortable with questioning something that she doesn't believe to be true. Regardless of my opinion or his this about article.

I am assuming that the teacher would not welcome valid criticism but I don't know if that s true.

 

[Anjaffm]

@Traver:

factually accurate

Hm... let me see... if I wrote a text and published it, about a certain politician whom I would quote as saying "I did not have s** with that woman!" ... that would most definitely be "factually accurate", in your definition. After all, that person did say that. And no ifs and buts about it.

Somehow, I get the feeling that my wonderful text with my wonderful "factually accurate" quote would be laughed at, though.
And somehow, I get the feeling that it might not be adviseable to give this wonderful "factually accurate" text of mine to high school students to read in politics class. As a means of "educating" them.

 

[Fulgurant]

When I read an article that is factually accurate and someone in a cause I believe in says it is not it bothers me ... Maybe it is because when I see the other side doing the same thing does it nothing to change my opinion.

This is the worst kind of sophistry -- willful ignorance dressed up as conscientious altruism. A reporter doesn't get to claim that his story is accurate on the basis that only his sources lied. And anyone defending that reporter isn't morally superior to the rest of us.

The Fourth Estate has a sacred duty to question those in power. Simply rubber stamping and publicizing the unsupported opinions of government officials (who offhandedly cite factually-accurate-but-materially-irrelevant statistics) is a betrayal of that duty, a betrayal of the public, and yes, a betrayal of truth.

 

[Anjaffm]

Thank you very much, Fulgurant
Thank you very much indeed!

 

[AgentAnia]

...What really disturbs about this is not the article....

I'm sorry you're not disturbed by this article. I wish you would be and think you should be but respect your right to your opinion.

....but the fact that her daughter's teacher in a science class hasn't taught her to be comfortable with questioning something that she doesn't believe to be true.

Now here, we are in complete agreement!

 

[RosaJ]

This is the worst kind of sophistry -- willful ignorance dressed up as conscientious altruism. A reporter doesn't get to claim that his story is accurate on the basis that only his sources lied. And anyone defending that reporter isn't morally superior to the rest of us.

The Fourth Estate has a sacred duty to question those in power. Simply rubber stamping and publicizing the unsupported opinions of government officials (who offhandedly cite factually-accurate-but-materially-irrelevant statistics) is a betrayal of that duty, a betrayal of the public, and yes, a betrayal of truth.

Can't agree with you more!!! One of my FB friends posted her outrage about Common Core lessons being taught to our children in the schools.

Politics are being sneaked into classrooms under the guise of teaching, in this case about possessive nouns:

1) A president's job is not easy. (I agree)
2) A nation's people do not always agree. (I agree)
3) The president's choices affect everyone. (I agree)
4) He (the president) makes sure the country's laws are fair. (I hope so, but doubtful)
5) Government officials' commands must be obeyed. (WOW! Whatever happened to freedom to change the government officials)
6) An individual's wants are less important than the nation's well-being. (I lived under Fidel Castro's reign and believe me, what is meant about the "nation's well-being" is nothing but a ruse)

I can't believe that in order to teach grammar to school children, they have to use politics as the topic. Food for thought... here's the article:

Common Core lessons blasted for sneaking politics into elementary classrooms | Fox News

 

[LDS714]

Perhaps compare and contrast to this article. It could become a treatise on anecdotal evidence...

Seriously, most of this ANTZ stuff could come directly from JIR.

 

[Traver]

Look at this in another way. We look at this article and dismiss it because it misrepresents what we believe.
The other side looks at us in the same way. So what would you listen to from the other side?
What can we say that they would listen too? What can the OP say?

 

[Fulgurant]

Perhaps compare and contrast to this article. It could become a treatise on anecdotal evidence...

Haha, awesome. That site will go into my collection of dangerously compelling, silly reading bookmarks -- along with TV Tropes and the "blog" of unnecessary "quotations."

Can't agree with you more!!! One of my FB friends posted her outrage about Common Core lessons being taught to our children in the schools.

Wow. If #5 and #6 are really taught in public schools ... Uh, wow! There are no words.

Thank you very much, Fulgurant
Thank you very much indeed!

Thank you, Anja. Your posts frequently brighten my day.