NationStates Jolt Archive

I would support someone refusing a draft on moral grounds...a priest refusing to marry a couple on moral grounds (I wouldn't like it, but I'd support it), but I take issue with other refusals.

Pharmacists, for example. I don't think they should have the option to refuse to serve people, or fill prescriptions on moral grounds. I don't think doctors should be allowed to refuse to treat patients on moral grounds. I don't think teachers should be allowed to refuse to teach certain children on moral grounds.

I've never heard a case of a teacher refusing to teach a student...but the pharmacist and doctor examples are becoming more common. What are your views?

I think paying my taxes is immoral, I think I'll refuse to do it from here on out.

A pharmacist that has moral issues needs to find a new career. His job is to advise on the use of a drug and what not. If he wants to dispense morality then he needs to become a Priest or what not.

The same for a doctor but I haven't heard of "morality" cases.....

I think paying my taxes is immoral, I think I'll refuse to do it from here on out.
Enjoy.

But seriously.

I think paying my taxes is immoral, I think I'll refuse to do it from here on out.


Bubba from prison says hello and he is excited you will be moving in!

A pharmacist that has moral issues needs to find a new career. His job is to advise on the use of a drug and what not. If he wants to dispense morality then he needs to become a Priest or what not.

The same for a doctor but I haven't heard of "morality" cases.....

I agree, TBF.

A pharmacist that has moral issues needs to find a new career. His job is to advise on the use of a drug and what not. If he wants to dispense morality then he needs to become a Priest or what not.

The same for a doctor but I haven't heard of "morality" cases.....
Some doctors refuse to treat TG patients, and when AIDS first happened on the scene, some doctors refused to treat gay men, believing that the disease was their punishment for their lifestyle.

Dan Savage in a recent column cited a case of a woman who was raped, phoning around for the 'morning-after' pill (or the 'abortion' pill? I'm still a bit unclear on the difference, but anyway), and found one pharmacy that had it stocked...but the pharamacist refused to let her buy it on moral grounds. Dan made a good point...why even stock it then? Just so you could deny it to someone? (Ok, maybe he wasn't the one who ordered the stocks, but still.) I'm sorry, but if some damn pharmacist refused to give me birth control 'on moral grounds' I'd lose it on him or her in a second, and make a deal out of it for a long, long time.

I would support someone refusing a draft on moral grounds...a priest refusing to marry a couple on moral grounds (I wouldn't like it, but I'd support it), but I take issue with other refusals.

Pharmacists, for example. I don't think they should have the option to refuse to serve people, or fill prescriptions on moral grounds. I don't think doctors should be allowed to refuse to treat patients on moral grounds. I don't think teachers should be allowed to refuse to teach certain children on moral grounds.

I've never heard a case of a teacher refusing to teach a student...but the pharmacist and doctor examples are becoming more common. What are your views?
The pharmacist has professional obligations that the priest does not. In refusing to marry a couple on moral grounds, the preist is effectively doing his job. In refusing to distribute pharmaceuticals, the pharmacist is not doing his job. So the problem arises when the morals interfere with the job.

Scarcasm is lost on you people

*shaking his head*

The pharmacist has professional obligations that the priest does not. In refusing to marry a couple, the preist is effectively doing his job. In refusing to distribute pharmaceuticals, the pharmacist is not doing his job. So the problem arises when the morals interfere with the job.
So why is it becoming more common to allow pharmacists to refuse????? WHY!!!???

And I agree on the distinction by the way.

Scarcasm is lost on you people

*shaking his head*
Na...just waiting for you to make a further point...do you support refusing on moral grounds in any situations? Or in none? Or just in some, but not others?

The pharmacist has professional obligations that the priest does not. In refusing to marry a couple on moral grounds, the preist is effectively doing his job. In refusing to distribute pharmaceuticals, the pharmacist is not doing his job. So the problem arises when the morals interfere with the job.

Well put.

Pharmacists, for example. I don't think they should have the option to refuse to serve people, or fill prescriptions on moral grounds. I don't think doctors should be allowed to refuse to treat patients on moral grounds. I don't think teachers should be allowed to refuse to teach certain children on moral grounds.

I would say that, if a pharmacist owns his own pharmacy, he can decide not to stock certain medicines on moral grounds. If he works for someone else, he must fulfill the job or get fired (ie. if they carry birth control, and he won't give it out, he gets fired).

The same goes for a doctor. A doctor can refuse to perform certain (non-emergency) procedures on moral grounds, so long as she owns her own practice and advertises as such. However, if she works for someone else, she must fulfill the job description of the job. If that job includes, say, abortions, she has to do them, quit, or get fired.

Likewise, teachers that own their own schools could refuse to, for instance, teach any students who weren't Christian. However, if they work for someone else, they perform the job as given, or get fired.

So why is it becoming more common to allow pharmacists to refuse????? WHY!!!???

And I agree on the distinction by the way.
I can't say, sorry. I don't deal with pharmacists at all.

Doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers &c. should always have the right to refuse any client for any reason, otherwise it would be a clear conflict of interest. That said, once they have accepted a client/patient, they should provide services to the best of their ability in respect of the state of practice, and not be bound by their own morals about what they can and cannot do. (Barring illeagality).

Pharmacists on the other hand, from what I can see, are just there to put pills in a bottle and skim their 10% of the top. So they should do what they are told. If they don't like it, they should retrain.

I would say that, if a pharmacist owns his own pharmacy, he can decide not to stock certain medicines on moral grounds. If he works for someone else, he must fulfill the job or get fired (ie. if they carry birth control, and he won't give it out, he gets fired). I just can't agree...something about this just really bothers me....and ditto for:

Likewise, teachers that own their own schools could refuse to, for instance, teach any students who weren't Christian. However, if they work for someone else, they perform the job as given, or get fired.
Though this one bothers me because it violates the Schools Act...a private tutor could refuse, but those are about the only private schools (i.e. completely non-funded by taxes) in Canada, so it would really not be an issue.

I can't say, sorry. I don't deal with pharmacists at all.
Neither do I. It doesn't mean this issue does not affect people I know...or hell, even people I DON'T know...and for that reason alone it bothers me.

Doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers &c. should always have the right to refuse any client for any reason, otherwise it would be a clear conflict of interest.
*blink*

Conflict of Interest arises when a person's personal life conflicts with their professional life in such a manner as to compromise the professional side. I don't think that applies here.

Neither do I. It doesn't mean this issue does not affect people I know...or hell, even people I DON'T know...and for that reason alone it bothers me.
But I meant that I can't address the question, because I have no idea even if the practice is becoming "more common," nevermind why.

I would support someone refusing a draft on moral grounds...a priest refusing to marry a couple on moral grounds (I wouldn't like it, but I'd support it), but I take issue with other refusals.

Pharmacists, for example. I don't think they should have the option to refuse to serve people, or fill prescriptions on moral grounds. I don't think doctors should be allowed to refuse to treat patients on moral grounds. I don't think teachers should be allowed to refuse to teach certain children on moral grounds.

I've never heard a case of a teacher refusing to teach a student...but the pharmacist and doctor examples are becoming more common. What are your views?

Actually i'd say its wrong for the priest to object on moral grounds as well. HE/she is offer ing a service as well.

What i do think is someone should be able to refuse things on moral grounds if it constitutes a change in their current proffession. Science teacher having to teach ID or a pharmacists selling a harmful drug, etc....

*blink*

Conflict of Interest arises when a person's personal life conflicts with their professional life in such a manner as to compromise the professional side. I don't think that applies here.
I totally missed his comment!

And for "any reason" Lacadaemon? Welcome to the very reason anti-discrimination legislation is necessary.

But I meant that I can't address the question, because I have no idea even if the practice is becoming "more common," nevermind why.
Got it. Sorry:)

A pharmacist that has moral issues needs to find a new career. His job is to advise on the use of a drug and what not. If he wants to dispense morality then he needs to become a Priest or what not.

The same for a doctor but I haven't heard of "morality" cases.....
I think there's been a few cases of Doctors refusing to fill out a scrip for birth control pills in the first place. Not as many as there have been self righteously mealy mouthed pharmacists, but I suppose people are a bit more likely to lose that sort of attitude on their way through medical school than they are on the course chemists take.

*blink*

Conflict of Interest arises when a person's personal life conflicts with their professional life in such a manner as to compromise the professional side. I don't think that applies here.

A lawyer or engineer can turn down a client without giving a reason. They are allowed to do this to prevent conflicts of interest. They might feel, for example, that the prospective client is so distasteful to them that they couldn't do a good job - which would be a conflict - and so they are allowed to duck out without saying why. (Then again, it might just be because they have too much work or are feeling lazy).

Yes; unless it is physically detrimental to somebody's life and there is no alternative available. For example, a doctor refusing to treat a patient and failing to refer said patient to another doctor, thereby possibly putting their life at risk.

Children should always be exempt. Try as I might, I can't really think of any legitimate reason why a teacher could refuse to educate a child on moral grounds, for example.

Actually i'd say its wrong for the priest to object on moral grounds as well. HE/she is offer ing a service as well. It's a bit murky for me when someone is acting as a representative of a religious belief, basing their action or non-action on that religious belief. I'm of a mind to let them object or not.

What i do think is someone should be able to refuse things on moral grounds if it constitutes a change in their current proffession. Science teacher having to teach ID or a pharmacists selling a harmful drug, etc.... Tricky that...sure, if ID was to be taught as the whole truth, to the exclusion of all else, sure...but if it were simply taught as another view of things, I would not support a refusal to teach it. And harmful...hard to decide, because the legally defined 'harmful' drugs are not generally legally available in the first place. If they have been approved, they are thought of as safe in the levels prescribed. I'd have a hard time buying someone's argument that they refused to sell a drug because it is 'harmful'.

Then again...I support refusing to serve alcohol to pregnant women...and perhaps even cigarettes...

I just can't agree...something about this just really bothers me....and ditto for:

A pharmacist is essentially a salesperson (one with more training, since what he sells could harm you). A grocery store owner could decide not to stock oranges if they want to. Likewise, a pharmacy owner could decide not to stock birth control pills. Pharmacies already decide what they will and will not stock all the time - this wouldn't be a change - it would just be an explanation for why they didn't stock that particular drug.

A person could open a "Catholic Pharmacy", same as people open "Christian bookstores" and only stock those medications which the Catholic Church would be ok with. Obviously, people who don't follow that religion and want contraceptives will go elsewhere for them and not go to the Catholic Pharmacy. If there isn't a large crowd who agree with this pharmacist, he'll likely go out of business.

This probably doesn't sit well with you because you don't think someone *should* do these things. Of course, I don't think a grocery store *should* refuse to sell me wine because they thinking alcohol is immoral. It just means I go to another grocery store....

Though this one bothers me because it violates the Schools Act...a private tutor could refuse, but those are about the only private schools (i.e. completely non-funded by taxes) in Canada, so it would really not be an issue.

I didn't say it would be easy (in any of the cases) for a person to do it. It involves completely owning your own business - something that doesn't happen often. You may be able to find like-minded people to fund your business, but I think a pharmacist would have trouble even getting the capital for a "Catholic Pharmacy" - and then he would have to compete with larger pharmacies that don't leave so much out. Likewise, a teacher would find it hard to run a school that discriminated on some moral basis, as most schools get government funding, and thus they couldn't do it...

Actually i'd say its wrong for the priest to object on moral grounds as well. HE/she is offer ing a service as well.

Not exactly. Religion and morals generally go hand in hand. Most often, priests are looked to as moral leaders. For them to do something they find immoral is quite hypocritical and actually against their job description.

A lawyer or engineer can turn down a client without giving a reason. They are allowed to do this to prevent conflicts of interest. They might feel, for example, that the prospective client is so distasteful to them that they couldn't do a good job - which would be a conflict - and so they are allowed to duck out without saying why. (Then again, it might just be because they have too much work or are feeling lazy).
If I'm wrong, I apologise, but I think that depends. For example, some defence laywers can not refuse a client (if they are court appointed) without significant difficulty...and distaste is not enough justification I believe. And again, unless this engineer you speak of is self-employed, they would have to abide by the decision of their employer as to who serves the client.

Not exactly. Religion and morals generally go hand in hand. Most often, priests are looked to as moral leaders. For them to do something they find immoral is quite hypocritical and actually against their job description.

mix race marriages in the past? was morally wrong. stuff like that. They are there to do a job

And for "any reason" Lacadaemon? Welcome to the very reason anti-discrimination legislation is necessary.

Yes, any reason. And think about it. If you were black, would you want to force a racist to design the underpinning for your house? I hardly think so. After all, how many gay clients do you think went to Fred Phelps when he was practicing law. (Though he did win an award from the NAACP).

Actually i'd say its wrong for the priest to object on moral grounds as well. HE/she is offer ing a service as well.

What i do think is someone should be able to refuse things on moral grounds if it constitutes a change in their current proffession. Science teacher having to teach ID or a pharmacists selling a harmful drug, etc....

Um....A Catholic priest asked to, for instance, marry a couple of Mormons, would be asked to do something that "constitutes a change in his current profession." His profession is to minister to Catholics - including providing Catholic wedding ceremonies. Anyone who is not Catholic or who does not meet the prerequisites for a Catholic wedding ceremony would fall outside his profession....

Originally Posted by Dempublicents1
I would say that, if a pharmacist owns his own pharmacy, he can decide not to stock certain medicines on moral grounds. If he works for someone else, he must fulfill the job or get fired (ie. if they carry birth control, and he won't give it out, he gets fired).
I just can't agree...something about this just really bothers me....
Perhaps the fact that the store (deliberately speaking objectively here) should provide required products regardless of the owner's personal beliefs?

Should beliefs factor in at all? I suppose they should, because none of us are automatons, with our subjective side totally objectified away. It's so easy to do, especially these days when scientism rules; easy to replace the person with "the pharmacist".

Yes; unless it is physically detrimental to somebody's life and there is no alternative available. For example, a doctor refusing to treat a patient and failing to refer said patient to another doctor, thereby possibly putting their life at risk. Well, the problem is also that sure...the patient could be referred to someone else, but quite often that means a significant delay before treatment....walk-in clinics are becoming more and more rare, and for anything a 'specialist' needs to see, it may be months, or even years before another appointment can be procured AND sometimes the only other specialist is a significant distance away. Certain circumstances (economic or otherwise) might prevent a patient from accessing the referral. I don't think it's enough to say, "Na, I don't like you because you offend my morals, here go see this doctor, my hands are now clean".

And I would like to see pharmacists who object on moral grounds have a huge sign in their window outlining their beliefs, so I could picket their damn store.

The pharmacist has professional obligations that the priest does not. In refusing to marry a couple on moral grounds, the preist is effectively doing his job. In refusing to distribute pharmaceuticals, the pharmacist is not doing his job. So the problem arises when the morals interfere with the job.
beat me to it. I have to file taxes for businesses that I find morally reprehensible. It's my job.

Tricky that...sure, if ID was to be taught as the whole truth, to the exclusion of all else, sure...but if it were simply taught as another view of things, I would not support a refusal to teach it. And harmful...hard to decide, because the legally defined 'harmful' drugs are not generally legally available in the first place. If they have been approved, they are thought of as safe in the levels prescribed. I'd have a hard time buying someone's argument that they refused to sell a drug because it is 'harmful'.

Then again...I support refusing to serve alcohol to pregnant women...and perhaps even cigarettes...

It would be morally wrong to lie in science class. Science is best on facts, etc... So even if it was that an evolution being taught side by side, i'd understand if a science teacher said hell no!
About the drugs. There are a lot on the market that have serious side effects. BUt if someone comes in with a prescription what can you do?
But the reference to the pharmacist would be "in that situation". Outside of something like that i cannot think of any reason why a pharmacist would morally object. Unless its a private business, then they can do what ever the hell they want really....

Um....A Catholic priest asked to, for instance, marry a couple of Mormons, would be asked to do something that "constitutes a change in his current profession." His profession is to minister to Catholics - including providing Catholic wedding ceremonies. Anyone who is not Catholic or who does not meet the prerequisites for a Catholic wedding ceremony would fall outside his profession....
Isn't it possible for them to be given a dispensation to do that?

Tricky that...sure, if ID was to be taught as the whole truth, to the exclusion of all else, sure...but if it were simply taught as another view of things, I would not support a refusal to teach it.
Teaching it as a science, however, is surely morally objectionable? It isn't anything of the sort.

A pharmacist is essentially a salesperson (one with more training, since what he sells could harm you).
Reduced in this way, we are all just salespeople...we all sell our services (labour). I think pharmacists are more than well-trained salespeople. I believe they are beyond that...and need to be held to higher professional standards...beyond market forces I mean.

If I'm wrong, I apologise, but I think that depends. For example, some defence laywers can not refuse a client (if they are court appointed) without significant difficulty...and distaste is not enough justification I believe. And again, unless this engineer you speak of is self-employed, they would have to abide by the decision of their employer as to who serves the client.

Court appointed attorneys can turn down clients. Depending on the court system they may have to make it up with someone else, is all. There are always more criminals than defence attorneys have time.

Problems only arise, after the attorney has agreed to represent someone, and then wants to back out. Then you need a reason.

What you say about engineers is true as far as they have to answer to their boss (as do associates in law offices). Nevertheless, it is still ultimately and engineer or lawyer that is making this determination.

Edit: Now that I think about it, there was a discrimination case in Mass. a few years back because an attorney who specialized in family law would only take female clients. It got tossed.

Perhaps the fact that the store (deliberately speaking objectively here) should provide required products regardless of the owner's personal beliefs?

So if I need pork for dinner tonight, a Kosher store should be required to sell it to me?

I think not....

Should beliefs factor in at all? I suppose they should, because none of us are automatons, with our subjective side totally objectified away. It's so easy to do, especially these days when scientism rules; easy to replace the person with "the pharmacist".

Your beliefs matter in your life insofar as you allow them to. If my beliefs matter enough that I will start my own store that sells no pork, or that I will start my own pharmacy that sells no contraceptives, or that I will open my own grocery store that sells no alcohol, that is my perogative. And if other people don't like it, they refuse to shop there, and I go out of business...

mix race marriages in the past? was morally wrong. stuff like that. They are there to do a job

Their job is to be the moral head of their congregation. If it's against their morals - whether you agree with the morals or not - then they are required, by their job description, to not perform it. You dont agree with their morals, you go find a new church that teaches the morals you value.

With a doctor, it's not quite so easy. A doctor should treat everyone whether or not it goes against their morals. They've taken it upon themselves to be a public servant in that manner and should not be passing judgement on those who come seeking treatment.

A doctor is not, by job description anyway, the moral leader of their hospital, nor their staff. A priest, by job description, is.

beat me to it. I have to file taxes for businesses that I find morally reprehensible. It's my job.

But, if you were to start your own company, you could provide that service only to businesses you did not find morally reprehensible, could you not?

It would be morally wrong to lie in science class. Science is best on facts, etc... No, science is based on theories, and specific ideologies. And pretending it is the only belief system out there is incredibly narrow-minded. So even if it was that an evolution being taught side by side, i'd understand if a science teacher said hell no! Generally this problem is solved by a mandated curriculum. If ID and evolution are both in the curriculum, the teacher can not legally refuse.

Just nitpicking:)

A lawyer or engineer can turn down a client without giving a reason. They are allowed to do this to prevent conflicts of interest. They might feel, for example, that the prospective client is so distasteful to them that they couldn't do a good job - which would be a conflict - and so they are allowed to duck out without saying why. (Then again, it might just be because they have too much work or are feeling lazy).
I disagree that that constitutes a "conflict of interest" but I won't press the matter. It's not relevant to the points you are making.

I think paying my taxes is immoral, I think I'll refuse to do it from here on out.

It IS immoral, you're supporting an organisation that is oppressive and corrupt.:D


couldn't resist

Ay this is so tricky...there are no absolutes for me, because I would support certain things, but not others. I'M SO CONFUSED!

Well, the problem is also that sure...the patient could be referred to someone else, but quite often that means a significant delay before treatment....walk-in clinics are becoming more and more rare, and for anything a 'specialist' needs to see, it may be months, or even years before another appointment can be procured AND sometimes the only other specialist is a significant distance away. Certain circumstances (economic or otherwise) might prevent a patient from accessing the referral. I don't think it's enough to say, "Na, I don't like you because you offend my morals, here go see this doctor, my hands are now clean".

And I would like to see pharmacists who object on moral grounds have a huge sign in their window outlining their beliefs, so I could picket their damn store.

I agree with your first point, and I think it illustrates a more general principle about "refusing on moral grounds": it's ok if the person you're refusing has a lot of other options, but if you've got a monopoly or near-monopoly on an essential service that could be problematic. If a business is the only realistic option for people they should try to serve everyone. This could even apply in the case of priests: if there is only one priest in a small, isolated town, they would be expected to perform ceremonies for most of the town's occupants, whether or not he agrees with their beleifs. It is only when there are other priests around that would agree with their beliefs that he can refuse.

I am a doctor and I´m guarenteed the option to refuse to treat a patient...except emergency cases at any time.

There may be options when you don´t want to treat someone: Hard example...the guy who raped and abused your underage daughter wants your treatment in a case of mild flu? Or you have a patient whom you know to be aggressive, always wanting something else, about to sue you on any given pretext...or someone who repeatedly refuses to pay his bills (yes, even doctors have to earn their money).

Under our governments law I´m guaranteed my refusal...without giving reasons, and I would defend that right to the utmost extent! Again, emergency cases where life and limb are threatened are the only exception.

I disagree that that constitutes a "conflict of interest" but I won't press the matter. It's not relevant to the points you are making.

Well, I see what you are saying, I suppose I would have been better served by saying professional conflict, or something. I gather you are talking about conflict of interest like trying to represent both sides at an arbitration.

Well, the problem is also that sure...the patient could be referred to someone else, but quite often that means a significant delay before treatment....walk-in clinics are becoming more and more rare, and for anything a 'specialist' needs to see, it may be months, or even years before another appointment can be procured AND sometimes the only other specialist is a significant distance away. Certain circumstances (economic or otherwise) might prevent a patient from accessing the referral. I don't think it's enough to say, "Na, I don't like you because you offend my morals, here go see this doctor, my hands are now clean".

In that case, the doctor is possibly putting his or her patient in danger because of that and therefore has a responsibility to treat the patient. I hardly think an emergency technician could refuse to treat someone after a car accident because of "moral" reasons; the same applies to any situation where a patient's life might be in danger. I'm thinking about things on the level of a GP here; if your doctor has a problem with you, you reschedule with another one a day later.

Specialists are a different story of course; You are correct. They're typically only found in big cities and appointments are few and far between. If, however, another specialist appointment can be arranged within reasonable parameters, the doctor should have the right to refuse treatment (even though I see that itself as morally wrong.)

And I would like to see pharmacists who object on moral grounds have a huge sign in their window outlining their beliefs, so I could picket their damn store.

Just make them staple a piece of paper with their ideals written on it to their foreheads. Any moral objections will surely cease after that. :)

No, science is based on theories, and specific ideologies. And pretending it is the only belief system out there is incredibly narrow-minded.

Does one have to talk about other philosophies in a science class in order to not "pretend it is the only belief system"?

Generally this problem is solved by a mandated curriculum. If ID and evolution are both in the curriculum, the teacher can not legally refuse.

True. But, like several teachers and adminstators in Kansas, if her view that only science should be taught as science is strong enough, she will gladly quit her job (or refuse to teach it and get fired).

I agree with your first point, and I think it illustrates a more general principle about "refusing on moral grounds": it's ok if the person you're refusing has a lot of other options, but if you've got a monopoly or near-monopoly on an essential service that could be problematic. If a business is the only realistic option for people they should try to serve everyone. This could even apply in the case of priests: if there is only one priest in a small, isolated town, they would be expected to perform ceremonies for most of the town's occupants, whether or not he agrees with their beleifs. It is only when there are other priests around that would agree with their beliefs that he can refuse.

Problems:

(a) A wedding ceremony is not an "essential service". No one has a need to be church-married, and those who think they do would only want it done by a like-minded religious person anyways.

(b) Forcing any priest to perform any ceremony against his religion is a very, very clear breach of the 1st Amendment. Way to go removing freedom of religion!

I am a doctor and I´m guarenteed the option to refuse to treat a patient...except emergency cases at any time.

There may be options when you don´t want to treat someone: Hard example...the guy who raped and abused your underage daughter wants your treatment in a case of mild flu? Or you have a patient whom you know to be aggressive, always wanting something else, about to sue you on any given pretext...or someone who repeatedly refuses to pay his bills (yes, even doctors have to earn their money).

Under our governments law I´m guaranteed my refusal...without giving reasons, and I would defend that right to the utmost extent! Again, emergency cases where life and limb are threatened are the only exception.
Hmmmm....good points...and if I ever DO become a lawyer, I want the right to choose my clients, for sure. I wouldn't want to take away the right to refuse that you've mentioned...but it does need to be balanced by options...ah shite, I don't know.

But, if you were to start your own company, you could provide that service only to businesses you did not find morally reprehensible, could you not?
probably. I am not sure how it was worded when I signed to be a certified paid preparer with the IRS but part of it is not discriminating.

So if I need pork for dinner tonight, a Kosher store should be required to sell it to me?

I think not....



Your beliefs matter in your life insofar as you allow them to. If my beliefs matter enough that I will start my own store that sells no pork, or that I will start my own pharmacy that sells no contraceptives, or that I will open my own grocery store that sells no alcohol, that is my perogative. And if other people don't like it, they refuse to shop there, and I go out of business...
Here's a posit:
You open your "No contraceptives" chemist in a small town in the sticks, most likely by buying up the existing premises. The place is too small to support any competiting chemists. Where are those who find your approach unacceptable to this going to go to shop elsewhere?
That's just the tip of the iceberg, though: if you want to make the place aggresively kosher, you'd have to stop selling insulin to diabetics as well.

No, science is based on theories, and specific ideologies. And pretending it is the only belief system out there is incredibly narrow-minded. Generally this problem is solved by a mandated curriculum. If ID and evolution are both in the curriculum, the teacher can not legally refuse.

Just nitpicking:)

Being more nitpicky: science is not based on theories, it is the basis of theories. If you are implying the popular definition of theory, it is only guided by theories. Science is by definition an approximation of objective reality. If something isn't close to that objective reality it is simply bad science, pure and simple. Every belief system falls under the scientific umbrella, some are just more or less accurate.

I am a doctor and I´m guarenteed the option to refuse to treat a patient...except emergency cases at any time.

There may be options when you don´t want to treat someone: Hard example...the guy who raped and abused your underage daughter wants your treatment in a case of mild flu? Or you have a patient whom you know to be aggressive, always wanting something else, about to sue you on any given pretext...or someone who repeatedly refuses to pay his bills (yes, even doctors have to earn their money).

Under our governments law I´m guaranteed my refusal...without giving reasons, and I would defend that right to the utmost extent! Again, emergency cases where life and limb are threatened are the only exception.

But does that also include not treating homosexuals because you think they are icky?

Does one have to talk about other philosophies in a science class in order to not "pretend it is the only belief system"? Not necessarily, no. You don't have to cover every single philosophy ever conceived of just to cover all your bases. But, for example, if one of your students brought up ID, you should devote a bit of time to exploring it. It's a fine line you walk as a teacher...you may be convinced that ID trumps evolution or the other way around...but you need to allow students to make up their own minds...again this goes back to curriculum, because very rarely does the curriculum say "this philosophy is the right one and the only one" anymore.



True. But, like several teachers and adminstators in Kansas, if her view that only science should be taught as science is strong enough, she will gladly quit her job (or refuse to teach it and get fired). Good. One less unprofessional teacher around.

I'm reminded of Keegstra in Eckville...who taught that the Holocaust was all propoganda and lies. They finally got him out because he was not teaching the curriculum.

Here's a posit:
You open your "No contraceptives" chemist in a small town in the sticks, most likely by buying up the existing premises. The place is too small to support any competiting chemists. Where are those who find your approach unacceptable to this going to go to shop elsewhere?
That's just the tip of the iceberg, though: if you want to make the place aggresively kosher, you'd have to stop selling insulin to diabetics as well.

Sounds like it sucks, eh?

Of course, if we're actually talking out in the sticks, there may not be a pharmacy there at all. So where do those people go for their medications? They go to the same place that the people who want medications that aren't offered would go - somewhere else.

You have no "right to have everything at your fingertips." If what you want/need is not close by, it is your responsibility to get it. No one else has a responsibility to bring it to you. There is no, "right to have a pharmacy in your town," much less a, "right to have a pharmacy that sells exactly what you need."

Note: This works only in a system that does not have socialized medicine. If the government is providing medicine, it would have the responsibility of making sure that there were government pharmacies available to everyone, just like it has to provide postal service to everyone, but that isn't the case here....

Comment: Now there is a Doc here.

Is not the pharmacist practicing medicine when he countermands the prescription of a Doctor? It is one thing if he says this is the wrong pill but is it not something else when he says this is wrong?

Being more nitpicky: science is not based on theories, it is the basis of theories. If you are implying the popular definition of theory, it is only guided by theories. Science is by definition an approximation of objective reality. If something isn't close to that objective reality it is simply bad science, pure and simple. Every belief system falls under the scientific umbrella, some are just more or less accurate.
True...but in teaching, we are not ever just dealing with 'science' as an objective reality...we are teaching the western philosophies that have driven our scientific investigations. In fact, our ability to even define an objective reality is weak, at best. Point being...science can not be taught in a purely objective form. Even the form is subjectively based.

Does one have to talk about other philosophies in a science class in order to not "pretend it is the only belief system"?



True. But, like several teachers and adminstators in Kansas, if her view that only science should be taught as science is strong enough, she will gladly quit her job (or refuse to teach it and get fired).



Problems:

(a) A wedding ceremony is not an "essential service". No one has a need to be church-married, and those who think they do would only want it done by a like-minded religious person anyways.

(b) Forcing any priest to perform any ceremony against his religion is a very, very clear breach of the 1st Amendment. Way to go removing freedom of religion!

(a) It would really depend on the people. There are definitely places, times, cultures, etc., where being married by a priest, any priest, is important. In the US, with our mostly secular marriage system and similarly secularized culture, it wouldn't be.

(b) 1st Amendment only frees religion from government control. It's still under moral control.

Comment: Now there is a Doc here.

Is not the pharmacist practicing medicine when he countermands the prescription of a Doctor? It is one thing if he says this is the wrong pill but is it not something else when he says this is wrong?
Good point!

But does that also include not treating homosexuals because you think they are icky?

As said, no reasons must be given...I would have absolutely no problems with treating homosexuals, bisexuals, heterosexuals or whatever they like...and generally I think science in medicine and religious beliefs should be separated, but I´m not the grand-master...

...so if a fellow doctor doesn´t want to treat homosexual patients, his choice (though I would disagree with him)

Again, exception emergency cases!

Not necessarily, no. You don't have to cover every single philosophy ever conceived of just to cover all your bases. But, for example, if one of your students brought up ID, you should devote a bit of time to exploring it. It's a fine line you walk as a teacher...you may be convinced that ID trumps evolution or the other way around...but you need to allow students to make up their own minds...again this goes back to curriculum, because very rarely does the curriculum say "this philosophy is the right one and the only one" anymore.

So, if you were teaching a class in English grammar, and a kid stood up and asked you about Latin grammar, you would be required to teach about Latin?

I think not.

In a science class, only science can be taught. If a student brought up ID, you could say only the following with good conscience: "ID is an idea that some people have about the world. It is a philosophical viewpoint. However, it is not testable or falsifiable. Thus, it is not science. If you would like to explore it, you can do so outside of my science classroom."

Good. One less unprofessional teacher around.

So it is "unprofessional" now to have professional ethics - to keep to your profession to not allow someone else to stomp all over your profession?

So, if a company made a rule that an accountant had to start "cooking the books", it would be "unprofessional" of him to refuse?

I'm reminded of Keegstra in Eckville...who taught that the Holocaust was all propoganda and lies. They finally got him out because he was not teaching the curriculum.

This is an irrelevant example. This guy was not teaching history (his job), he was teaching propoganda. In the case of the science class, a teacher is being asked to do something outside her job - ie. teach something other than science.

An actual comparison to the teaching of ID in the science classroom would be if a school changed the curriculum so that a history teacher had to teach that the Holocaust never happened and that it was actually the Jews killing Germans. Would you consider it "unprofessional" of a teacher to then refuse to teach that curriculum?

Well, I see what you are saying, I suppose I would have been better served by saying professional conflict, or something. I gather you are talking about conflict of interest like trying to represent both sides at an arbitration.
Alright. What is being compromised for the pharmacist, or the laywer in your example, is their beliefs, not their job, and this leads to their inability to do the job well. "Conflict of Interest" isn't about personal feelings inhibiting a person from executing their duties. Conflict of Interest has less to do with the person and more to do with the situation of their lives. For instance, the consultant who is awarding a construction contract to a company that their wife belongs to... their personal life interferes with their ability to execute their job, because even if the award is fairly executed, following all the rules, the wife's involvement in the construction company provides a potential for personal bias for the person doing the award. The fact of his wife belonging to that company (his personal life) compromises his ability to do that job (professional life).

Is not the pharmacist practicing medicine when he countermands the prescription of a Doctor? It is one thing if he says this is the wrong pill but is it not something else when he says this is wrong?

No. Now, if he says, "You don't actually need this medicine," or "This medicine will harm you," or something along those lines, he is practicing medicine. If all he says is, "I don't carry this medication because I believe it to be immoral," he is not practicing medicine, as he has said nothing at all about the medical ramifications of the medication.

True...but in teaching, we are not ever just dealing with 'science' as an objective reality...we are teaching the western philosophies that have driven our scientific investigations. In fact, our ability to even define an objective reality is weak, at best. Point being...science can not be taught in a purely objective form. Even the form is subjectively based.

Please tell me what exactly is "subjective" about the very objective scientific method?

(a) It would really depend on the people. There are definitely places, times, cultures, etc., where being married by a priest, any priest, is important.

Being important and being essential are not the same. It is important to me that I eventually get married in a church. That doesn't make it *essential*.

(b) 1st Amendment only frees religion from government control. It's still under moral control.

Yes, but the morals of a religion are decided by that religion, not by random people outside of it. Thus, if the religion states that only members of that religion can be married, it would immoral for a priest to perform a wedding ceremony for others.

True...but in teaching, we are not ever just dealing with 'science' as an objective reality...we are teaching the western philosophies that have driven our scientific investigations. In fact, our ability to even define an objective reality is weak, at best. Point being...science can not be taught in a purely objective form. Even the form is subjectively based.

Science is effectively the quest for an objective reality. The quest itself may have been driven by the concerns of a specific culture, one that I would actually argue is separate from western philosophy, but that doesn't mean it itself is subjective. Science can pursue the concerns of any culture.

In any case, the purpose of teaching science is to teach how to understand science, not how to understand anything else. Teaching ID would be like teaching the Japanese Tea Ceremony in a class in British etiquette: pointless.

Comment: Now there is a Doc here.

Is not the pharmacist practicing medicine when he countermands the prescription of a Doctor? It is one thing if he says this is the wrong pill but is it not something else when he says this is wrong?

A pharmacist countermanding a doctors prescription is failing against his professional stance...and may be legally prosecuted (I would merrily gut (judicial speaking) any pharmacist doing so with my prescriptions)!

Mistakes which may happen, pharmacists also do not have the legal and professional right to

a) alter prescriptions

b) prescribe themselves

c) offer advice concerning the prescription and the relating ailment

They have the right to dispense prescribed drugs (which doctors do not have)

(only speaking for german medical law, but most countries are similar in that point)

A pharmacist that has moral issues needs to find a new career. His job is to advise on the use of a drug and what not. If he wants to dispense morality then he needs to become a Priest or what not.


I agree, TBF.

1. Someone please define "moral issues." What I've noticed is that people tend to equate "religion" with "moral issues." Because people tend to reject religion, they tend to reject "moral issues." Of course, it's silly to do so as even the most secular society, if it makes rules and laws that regulate how its members behave rightly or wrongly, engages in the "legislation of morality."

2. Once we've defined "moral issues," write the definition down on a piece of paper, crumple it up and throw it away: the reason given for refusing to render a particular service is completely irrevelant. A human being cannot be free while being compelled to perform a service that he or she does not want to perform. It is that simple. Sure, a pharmacist could find another job. But then, a patient could find another doctor/pharmacist, too. I prefer the latter as it leaves the pharmacist free to do whatever, and the patient still gets medicine.

Hmmmm....good points...and if I ever DO become a lawyer, I want the right to choose my clients, for sure. I wouldn't want to take away the right to refuse that you've mentioned...but it does need to be balanced by options...ah shite, I don't know.

Welcome confusion :D

And no, a non-emergency case patient does not need options, either he gets treated or he looks for another doctor:eek:

Being important and being essential are not the same. It is important to me that I eventually get married in a church. That doesn't make it *essential*.



Yes, but the morals of a religion are decided by that religion, not by random people outside of it. Thus, if the religion states that only members of that religion can be married, it would immoral for a priest to perform a wedding ceremony for others.

(a) Again, depends very heavily on the place and time. In the US of now I would agree with you.

(b) The morals of a religion are decided by that religion, but the morals of a priest are much more complex. My interpretation of this thread was that it was assuming a conflict between the priest's religious moral obligation to not serve the people and some hypothetical moral obligation to serve the people. If that obligation is irrelevant, then the answer to the question of this thread would simply be yes.

So, if you were teaching a class in English grammar, and a kid stood up and asked you about Latin grammar, you would be required to teach about Latin?

I think not. Ah Dem, I was just waiting for the shoe to drop...try not to put words in my mouth or make up arguments I never espoused, okay?

I made it VERY clear that the curriculum is the only REQUIREMENT. If the curriculum does not require you to teach ID in Science class, of course you don't have to. A good teacher, however, does not ignore the input or questions of students. No one is required to be a good teacher. So yes, if someone asked you a question about Latin, and you felt you could tie it into the lesson on English grammar, you should do it. If you couldn't make it fit, you shouldn't. In neither case are you required to unless the curriculum requires it.

In a science class, only science can be taught.

Sure, if that's the stance the curriculum takes. Most of the science curriculum our there includes philosophical and historical information as a background. So no...generally no, you are not correct.

If a student brought up ID, you could say only the following with good conscience: "ID is an idea that some people have about the world. It is a philosophical viewpoint. However, it is not testable or falsifiable. Thus, it is not science. If you would like to explore it, you can do so outside of my science classroom."YOU could only say that in 'good conscience'. Other teachers may choose to use this 'teachable moment' to go further into it. Again, curriculum is king...though you have some leeway to go into further detail if you choose.



So it is "unprofessional" now to have professional ethics - to keep to your profession to not allow someone else to stomp all over your profession? No, it is unprofessional to not do your job. And if your job requires you teach ID, either switch classes so you don't have to, or leave. Period.

So, if a company made a rule that an accountant had to start "cooking the books", it would be "unprofessional" of him to refuse?If cooking the books were legal, and a legal requirment, then yes. Pointless analogy though.



This is an irrelevant example. This guy was not teaching history (his job), he was teaching propoganda. In the case of the science class, a teacher is being asked to do something outside her job - ie. teach something other than science. It is far from being an irrelevant example. It proves that you can loose your job for not teaching the curriculum. He wasn't fired for teaching that the Holocaust was a lie...he was fired for not teaching the Holocaust at all. Had he done BOTH, he would have (unfortunately) been able to keep his job, even if he made it clear his personal beliefs lay with the conspiracy theory.

An actual comparison to the teaching of ID in the science classroom would be if a school changed the curriculum so that a history teacher had to teach that the Holocaust never happened and that it was actually the Jews killing Germans. Would you consider it "unprofessional" of a teacher to then refuse to teach that curriculum?
Yes. The curriculum is a legal document. If it spreads lies, and hate, legally...you quit, or you teach it.

But does that also include not treating homosexuals because you think they are icky?

Depends why, but I would think it would be similar to an Arachnophobic veteranarian refusing to treat a pet tarantula. If someone really does have an irrational revulsion to something, they shouldn't be forced to do it.

Please tell me what exactly is "subjective" about the very objective scientific method?


The method itself is based on western philosophy.

Science is effectively the quest for an objective reality. The quest itself may have been driven by the concerns of a specific culture, one that I would actually argue is separate from western philosophy, but that doesn't mean it itself is subjective. Science can pursue the concerns of any culture. Alright, I'll just accept this and move on but:

In any case, the purpose of teaching science is to teach how to understand science, not how to understand anything else. Teaching ID would be like teaching the Japanese Tea Ceremony in a class in British etiquette: pointless.
What science class are you talking about here? Did any of you really go to a school that never brought in the history and philosophies that drove certain researches and discoveries? Come on now. The history of science is imbedded in the curriculum (as is easily proven by flipping through and secondary-level science text).

No, it is unprofessional to not do your job. And if your job requires you teach ID, either switch classes so you don't have to, or leave. Period.

But unprofessional hardly equates with immoral. As far as I understand this thread we are asking whether or not someone can decide to be unprofessional to support their morality. Saying that being unprofessional makes them unprofessional is redundant.

But unprofessional hardly equates with immoral. As far as I understand this thread we are asking whether or not someone can decide to be unprofessional to support their morality. Saying that being unprofessional makes them unprofessional is redundant.
I don't think anyone suggested the pharmacist who refuses to serve customers on moral grounds is immoral. The thread is about his being unprofessional.

Alright, I'll just accept this and move on but:


What science class are you talking about here? Did any of you really go to a school that never brought in the history and philosophies that drove certain researches and discoveries? Come on now. The history of science is imbedded in the curriculum (as is easily proven by flipping through and secondary-level science text).

That's exactly the point: science class is for understanding not only science, but the scientific tradition and culture. It is not necessarily for advocating said tradition and culture (though it probably should, just like a French class should try to cast France in a good light). Teaching another culture would be pointless.

But unprofessional hardly equates with immoral. As far as I understand this thread we are asking whether or not someone can decide to be unprofessional to support their morality. Saying that being unprofessional makes them unprofessional is redundant.
Not in this particular case (teaching), because you can not legally refuse to teach the curriculum, on moral grounds or on any other grounds. A pharmacist, in certain areas, can.

That's exactly the point: science class is for understanding not only science, but the scientific tradition and culture. It is not necessarily for advocating said tradition and culture (though it probably should, just like a French class should try to cast France in a good light). Teaching another culture would be pointless.
:headbang: You say that as though there is and always has been only ONE scientific tradition, and as though other cultures have had NO impact on the current scientific tradition in your country.

I would support someone refusing a draft on moral grounds...a priest refusing to marry a couple on moral grounds (I wouldn't like it, but I'd support it), but I take issue with other refusals.

Pharmacists, for example. I don't think they should have the option to refuse to serve people, or fill prescriptions on moral grounds. I don't think doctors should be allowed to refuse to treat patients on moral grounds. I don't think teachers should be allowed to refuse to teach certain children on moral grounds.

I've never heard a case of a teacher refusing to teach a student...but the pharmacist and doctor examples are becoming more common. What are your views?
Refusing to treat people on "moral grounds" is not only highly unprofessional, it's the equivalent of the "Christian Scientists" refusing treatment for their children for "religious reasons." Both suck equally. :headbang:

Please tell me what exactly is "subjective" about the very objective scientific method?
She is talking about teaching, not being a scientist. Teaching the scientific method isn't the same as practicing it. Teaching should properly explore around the edges of a topic; if nothing else, to more securely define it. And a good teacher should make class--and learning--interesting by entertaining ideas from the students.

In any case, the purpose of teaching science is to teach how to understand science, not how to understand anything else. Teaching ID would be like teaching the Japanese Tea Ceremony in a class in British etiquette: pointless.
Talking about ID in a science class is radically different from having it as a part of the curriculum.

Sure, if that's the stance the curriculum takes. Most of the science curriculum our there includes philosophical and historical information as a background. So no...generally no, you are not correct.

Including information as a background and teaching that information as science are two very different things.

YOU could only say that in 'good conscience'. Other teachers may choose to use this 'teachable moment' to go further into it.

And, in doing so, completely confuse their students as to what science is. If you start teaching non-science as though it is science, you are doing a grave disservice to your students.

No, it is unprofessional to not do your job. And if your job requires you teach ID, either switch classes so you don't have to, or leave. Period.

And yet you called the teachers who did leave "unprofessional".

If cooking the books were legal, and a legal requirment, then yes. Pointless analogy though.

Who cares if it is legal? We are talking ethics here.

It is far from being an irrelevant example. It proves that you can loose your job for not teaching the curriculum.

...which is irrelevant, because I have never argued that you should keep a job that you are not doing - whatever reasons you have for not doing it.

Yes. The curriculum is a legal document. If it spreads lies, and hate, legally...you quit, or you teach it.

And yet you called the teachers who decided to quit on that basis "unprofessional".



The method itself is based on empiricism and logic - both things you find in both western and eastern philosophy. I would venture a guess that these things mean something in Native American philosophies as well....

[quote]You say that as though there is and always has been only ONE scientific tradition, and as though other cultures have had NO impact on the current scientific tradition in your country.

The scientific method is not a "culture", nor is it in any way restricted to a single culture. Much like mathematics, the scientific method is a specific set of logic.

She is talking about teaching, not being a scientist. Teaching the scientific method isn't the same as practicing it. Teaching should properly explore around the edges of a topic; if nothing else, to more securely define it. And a good teacher should make class--and learning--interesting by entertaining ideas from the students.

And by pointing out exactly how they don't fit in with the scientific method, like I said above?

Sure, a student could bring up, say, Creationism in a classroom. And the teacher could use it as an example of poor science - of something that does not follow the scientific method.

Sounds like it sucks, eh?

Of course, if we're actually talking out in the sticks, there may not be a pharmacy there at all. So where do those people go for their medications? They go to the same place that the people who want medications that aren't offered would go - somewhere else.

You have no "right to have everything at your fingertips." If what you want/need is not close by, it is your responsibility to get it. No one else has a responsibility to bring it to you. There is no, "right to have a pharmacy in your town," much less a, "right to have a pharmacy that sells exactly what you need."

Note: This works only in a system that does not have socialized medicine. If the government is providing medicine, it would have the responsibility of making sure that there were government pharmacies available to everyone, just like it has to provide postal service to everyone, but that isn't the case here....
It doesn't sound like it sucks, it sucks like Paris Hilton in heat.
My own (naive, impractical and probably socialist) attitude is that the role of a chemist is to provide a community with drugs. If there are drugs the chemist refuses to sell over superstition, then they should find another job.
And while we have socialised medicine over here, Chemists are still businesses. A few people get free perscriptions (the cost of which are claimed against the local NHS trust), the rest of us pay.

Sure, a student could bring up, say, Creationism in a classroom. And the teacher could use it as an example of poor science - of something that does not follow the scientific method.
Well, the teacher could, I suppose... and be wrong. Religion is not any example of science. But if The Creation comes up in discussion, and the point made can be related back to the curriculum, as Sinuhue suggested, then there is no good reason it should not be discussed.

It doesn't sound like it sucks, it sucks like Paris Hilton in heat.

Cute.

My own (naive, impractical and probably socialist) attitude is that the role of a chemist is to provide a community with drugs. If there are drugs the chemist refuses to sell over superstition, then they should find another job.

Who says it is superstition? What if a person honestly and completely believes that an embryo is a human person? No one can agree on the exact definition of "human person", so you can't really say they are wrong or superstitious. They thus refuse to sell anything they think will harm an embryo.

You may not like it. You may not agree. But can you force them to do it?

The role of a pharmacist is to fill prescriptions - absolutely. But, as with any job, can she not decide which products to carry and which not to?

And while we have socialised medicine over here, Chemists are still businesses. A few people get free perscriptions (the cost of which are claimed against the local NHS trust), the rest of us pay.

As far as I am concerned, if a pharmacy is getting government money, it is governed by whatever rules the government places upon it. If the government then decides to create a list of drugs that *must* be carried, the pharmacy is held to that.

Well, the teacher could, I suppose... and be wrong. Religion is not any example of science.

Exactly the point! So how is she wrong again?

But if The Creation comes up in discussion, and the point made can be related back to the curriculum, as Sinuhue suggested, then there is no good reason it should not be discussed.

And the only way, based on the scientific method, to discuss it is to point out that it is untestable, unfalsifiable, and thus has no place in science.

Refusing to do something on moral grounds is ALWAYS an option. It merely depends on whether or not the person is prepared to accept the consequences of that action. In the case of a priest not marrying a homosexual couple or being exempted from the draft, the consequences are nil; the choices are legal (ignoring of course any social reprecursions). However, what if a pharmacist were to object to filling a prescription, or a doctor an operation? Though there would be consequences to those actions, the choice to make those decisions would still be theirs to make. Rosa Parks objected to having to move. She lived with the consequences of that action (jail), but also managed, in time, to change them.
Too often people say freedom and mean not having to suffer, endure hardship, or to be held exempt from consequences of their actions.

Exactly the point! So how is she wrong again?
Because "bad" science is still science. Creationism is not science at all.

And the only way, based on the scientific method, to discuss it is to point out that it is untestable, unfalsifiable, and thus has no place in science.
Teaching is not based on the scientific method.

Who says it is superstition? What if a person honestly and completely believes that an embryo is a human person? No one can agree on the exact definition of "human person", so you can't really say they are wrong or superstitious. They thus refuse to sell anything they think will harm an embryo.

You may not like it. You may not agree. But can you force them to do it?

The role of a pharmacist is to fill prescriptions - absolutely. But, as with any job, can she not decide which products to carry and which not to?
Apparantly she can, but she damn well shouldn't. Would you be equally happy to have a Christian Scientist chemist who refuses to have anything to do with any medication besides bandages? If she is not going to fill scrips she should find another job. It honestly is that simple.

Including information as a background and teaching that information as science are two very different things. :rolleyes: Yes, two different things, taught in the same class. Gasp, sometimes even THREE OR MORE different things are taught in a class as well. THE HORROR!



And, in doing so, completely confuse their students as to what science is. If you start teaching non-science as though it is science, you are doing a grave disservice to your students. You are the one who is saying that a non-science would be taught as a science. I've never argued it would be. However, much as the early beliefs about the sun revolving around the earth are brought up in a science class in secondary school, so could ID be brought in as a way to expose students, who by the way are not mindless automatons who can only ever be exposed to one idea, to differing viewpoints. You are making up arguments just so you can argue them. Please don't.

did[/i] leave "unprofessional". Yup. The one who quits has done so on moral grounds, and that's just fine...at least she/he was able to acknowledge that he/she could not be a professional and do their job. Good decision, and the best one in that case. The one who is FIRED however, is an unprofessional teacher, who is not following the legal requirements of his or her job.



Who cares if it is legal? We are talking ethics here. Only according to you. I, at least, am talking about legalities AND ethics. If by law you are required to do something and you don't, you are breaking the law and behaving in an unprofessional manner. Sometimes that is a good ethical decision, but it makes you no less unprofessional.




...which is irrelevant, because I have never argued that you should keep a job that you are not doing - whatever reasons you have for not doing it. Nor am I saying that you ARE arguing that...wait... what the hell is your argument exactly? Because it seems to change post by post. First it's ethics, then it's 'professionalism versus unprofessionalism' then it's not... Sum it up for me.



And yet you called the teachers who decided to quit on that basis "unprofessional". See above.



The method itself is based on empiricism and logic - both things you find in both western and eastern philosophy. I would venture a guess that these things mean something in Native American philosophies as well....


The scientific method is not a "culture", nor is it in any way restricted to a single culture. Much like mathematics, the scientific method is a specific set of logic. Whatever Dem...show me a secondary level curriculum that does not talk about the culture, the philosophies, and the history of science, or drop it. You are clearly talking about a different class than I.



And by pointing out exactly how they don't fit in with the scientific method, like I said above?

Sure, a student could bring up, say, Creationism in a classroom. And the teacher could use it as an example of poor science - of something that does not follow the scientific method.
No one said a teacher would be doing anything BUT that. Except you, who seems to think that kids are being taught the scientific method in a vacume.

Too often people say freedom and mean not having to suffer, endure hardship, or to be held exempt from consequences of their actions.
Yes, thanks for bringing us out of specific issue to the general question. You make a good point. Most actions based on moral objections would carry little weight were there no consequences to that action...imagine a person who refused the draft, and nothing happened. Who would care? Who would that inspire? What would that really change?

Teaching is not based on the scientific method.
*imagines a world in which teaching WOULD be based on the scientific method*
That would be....quite interesting:)

*imagines a world in which teaching WOULD be based on the scientific method*
That would be....quite interesting:)
Right. They teach that the French for dog is "chat" in a lot of French classes, because kids prefer kittens to puppies.

Because "bad" science is still science. Creationism is not science at all.

You should tell that to them. When someone tries to use "science" to verify their religion, they are doing it incorrectly. That is *exactly* what many Creationists try to do, and they even attempt to call it "science".

Teaching is not based on the scientific method.

No, but teaching science[/i] is teaching the scientific method and those theories which have been derived from it.

Apparantly she can, but she damn well shouldn't.

There are many things we can do that I would say we shouldn't.

Would you be equally happy to have a Christian Scientist chemist who refuses to have anything to do with any medication besides bandages?

They wouldn't exactly be a "chemist" at that point, as any grocery store clerk can legally sell bandages.

However, if someone really wanted to open a pharmacy that only sold bandages, and thought they could make a profit at it, they could certainly try.

You are the one who is saying that a non-science would be taught as a science. I've never argued it would be. However, much as the early beliefs about the sun revolving around the earth are brought up in a science class in secondary school, so could ID be brought in as a way to expose students, who by the way are not mindless automatons who can only ever be exposed to one idea, to differing viewpoints. You are making up arguments just so you can argue them. Please don't.

I'm not making arguments up here. The discussion started with a mention of what is going on in Kansas, where they are trying to teach ID [b]as science. Thus, the entire basis of the conversation was a teacher refusing to teach ID as science.

Yup. The one who quits has done so on moral grounds, and that's just fine...at least she/he was able to acknowledge that he/she could not be a professional and do their job.

I really can't believe that you think lying to your students is a "professional" way to be a teacher. Would you really consider yourself "unprofessional" if, for instance, you were handed curriculum telling you to teach that Native Americans were a separate, and inferior species or you were handed a curriculum telling you to teach that women were inferior to men and you quit instead?

To tell the truth, I would say that doing so would show the highest professional devotion to your trade - that you would not teach something you knew to be incorrect.

Nor am I saying that you ARE arguing that...wait... what the hell is your argument exactly? Because it seems to change post by post. First it's ethics, then it's 'professionalism versus unprofessionalism' then it's not... Sum it up for me.

Ethics is a part of professionalism. Pretty much every profession has a code of ethics attached, from medicine to construction. To be professional, you must follow that code of ethics. If someone tries to tell you to do your job in such a way as to conflict with those ethics, to refuse to do so is not unprofessional, as professionalism requires you to follow them.

Whatever Dem...show me a secondary level curriculum that does not talk about the culture, the philosophies, and the history of science, or drop it. You are clearly talking about a different class than I.

Show me any class that assigns a "culture" to science, and I will show you a class that isn't actually teaching about science. There is a subset of philosophy that is equal to science - the scientific method. Any science class obviously teaches that philosophy, as it is what science is. And the history of science is necessary to discuss how the various theories were arrived at (using the scientific method). Of course, the history of science is not limited to any one culture or "Western vs. Eastern" philosophy.

No one said a teacher would be doing anything BUT that.

Again, the discussion started with a mention of the situation in Kansas, in which teachers are being asked to bring up ID as science. Thus, the entire discussion has been based upon that premise.

Except you, who seems to think that kids are being taught the scientific method in a vacume.

I said nothing about a vacuum. I simply pointed out that it would be unethical, unprofessional, and completely contrary to the purpose of teaching to teach anything but science as science.

I would support someone refusing a draft on moral grounds...a priest refusing to marry a couple on moral grounds (I wouldn't like it, but I'd support it), but I take issue with other refusals.

Pharmacists, for example. I don't think they should have the option to refuse to serve people, or fill prescriptions on moral grounds. I don't think doctors should be allowed to refuse to treat patients on moral grounds. I don't think teachers should be allowed to refuse to teach certain children on moral grounds.

I've never heard a case of a teacher refusing to teach a student...but the pharmacist and doctor examples are becoming more common. What are your views?
I agree, except in the case of the soldier. What if your country is being invaded, do you still support the guy refusing the draft on moral grounds?

No, but teaching [b]science[/i] is teaching the scientific method and those theories which have been derived from it.
Right. It is teaching. It is not practicing science. And as teaching, it should do a lot more than simply present the topic for edification.

I'm not making arguments up here. The discussion started with a mention of what is going on in Kansas, where they are trying to teach ID as science. Thus, the entire basis of the conversation was a teacher refusing to teach ID as science. Yes, but you have strayed from that to assuming that Creationism, brought up in any science class, would be taught as fact instead of simply another view. In any case, if it's in the curriculum as a FACT, and you disagree, leave the profession. I think that's a good choice, because you could not remain in your position, and be professional, by refusing to do your job...teaching that kind of crap as truth.



I really can't believe that you think lying to your students is a "professional" way to be a teacher. Would you really consider yourself "unprofessional" if, for instance, you were handed curriculum telling you to teach that Native Americans were a separate, and inferior species or you were handed a curriculum telling you to teach that women were inferior to men and you quit instead? Yes I would. Professionalism is following the guidelines of your profession. For teachers, we have a professional code of conduct, but we also have a legal responsibility to teach the curriculum, whether we agree with it or not. If we really object, we should not teach, and leave the profession. You are talking about professionalism as though your personal ethics supercede your professional ones. Legally, they can not.

To tell the truth, I would say that doing so would show the highest professional devotion to your trade - that you would not teach something you knew to be incorrect. And if you believed it to be true? And really believed that evolution was incorrect? A teacher, who is a professional, can not allow personal beliefs to interfere with their teaching. A teacher is also human, however, and if they object strongly enough, they will fight to change the curriculum, and failing that, leave.



Ethics is a part of professionalism. Pretty much every profession has a code of ethics attached, from medicine to construction. To be professional, you must follow that code of ethics. If someone tries to tell you to do your job in such a way as to conflict with those ethics, to refuse to do so is not unprofessional, as professionalism requires you to follow them. I don't disagree. However, nothing in a teacher's code of professional conduct (http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/fieldexperiences/nav03.cfm?nav03=25792&nav02=25791&nav01=25772) that superceeds the curriculum, which is designed by the government. You could be a lawyer who wants to use illegal wire taps in your case, and someone can tell you not to....ethically you can disagree, but that doesn't give you the right to do it anyway. You have to adhere to your profession's code and rules. Like a teacher must.



Show me any class that assigns a "culture" to science, and I will show you a class that isn't actually teaching about science. Don't avoid my request, or try to rephrase it. I never talked about assigning a culture. I will not defend a position I did not make. I resent the fact that you continue to make up my argument for me.

I challenge you to find me a secondary level science curriculum that does not mention historical perspectives, various philosophies and cultural views of science. You can't, because as you finally admit below:


There is a subset of philosophy that is equal to science - the scientific method. Any science class obviously teaches that philosophy, as it is what science is. And the history of science is necessary to discuss how the various theories were arrived at (using the scientific method). Of course, the history of science is not limited to any one culture or "Western vs. Eastern" philosophy.


Again, the discussion started with a mention of the situation in Kansas, in which teachers are being asked to bring up ID as science. Thus, the entire discussion has been based upon that premise. No, your argument has. Don't tell me what the parameters of my argument are. Despite the fact that you can't seem to understand them, when I lay them out for you clearly, I am not going to suddenly stop and say, "OH! Dem's right! I meant THIS even though I said THAT!"


I said nothing about a vacuum. I simply pointed out that it would be unethical, unprofessional, and completely contrary to the purpose of teaching to teach anything but science as science.
Yes yes, and we only teach math as math, and history as history and sewing as sewing:rolleyes:

Either you accept as you said earlier, that TEACHING SCIENCE CLASS includes history, philosophies, and different viewpoints, or you don't. Which is it? Saying 'science is science' means absolutely nothing.

The pharmacist has professional obligations that the priest does not. In refusing to marry a couple on moral grounds, the preist is effectively doing his job. In refusing to distribute pharmaceuticals, the pharmacist is not doing his job. So the problem arises when the morals interfere with the job.
Agreed
Though if the private company that employ's him/her decides to not stock a medication on moral grounds then the issue gets harrier

In that case I believe they should then not recive public funds

Right. It is teaching. It is not practicing science. And as teaching, it should do a lot more than simply present the topic for edification.
Yes...I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.

I agree, except in the case of the soldier. What if your country is being invaded, do you still support the guy refusing the draft on moral grounds?
Yup. If you are a pacifist, you need to stand for your ideals and refuse to fight, regardless of the situation.

I'm not making arguments up here. The discussion started with a mention of what is going on in Kansas, where they are trying to teach ID as science. Thus, the entire basis of the conversation was a teacher refusing to teach ID as science.
Actually, the discussion began as a suggestion that the science teacher refusing to teach ID on moral grounds was okay.

Agreed
Though if the private company that employ's him/her decides to not stock a medication on moral grounds then the issue gets harrier

In that case I believe they should then not recive public funds
Well, now, what public funds does a privately owned pharmacutical receive?

There are many things we can do that I would say we shouldn't.
Like rounding up fuckwits who try to drag religion into business and politics and martyring them in some suitably unpleasant fashion, for a start.

They wouldn't exactly be a "chemist" at that point, as any grocery store clerk can legally sell bandages.
They would, because they'd still be trading as a chemist. This is why I find the swine refusing to sell birth control pills and contraceptives offensive. It's the thin end of the wedge.

I would support someone refusing a draft on moral grounds...

I don't think anyone should have the right to refuse fighting in a strictly defensive war.

a priest refusing to marry a couple on moral grounds (I wouldn't like it, but I'd support it),

Sure. As long as a justice of the peace does not have the same leeway.

Pharmacists, for example. I don't think they should have the option to refuse to serve people, or fill prescriptions on moral grounds.

I agree... Unfortunately, it doesn't make much difference. They will always (and should always) be allowed to refuse service on medical grounds; and so far they have proven very resourceful in finding medical grounds to use as pretexts for "moral" refusals.

I don't think doctors should be allowed to refuse to treat patients on moral grounds.

Agreed, but the problem above appears again.

I don't think teachers should be allowed to refuse to teach certain children on moral grounds.

Agreed, and I think this one is easier to enforce.

I agree... Unfortunately, it doesn't make much difference. They will always (and should always) be allowed to refuse service on medical grounds; and so far they have proven very resourceful in finding medical grounds to use as pretexts for "moral" refusals.
Come off it: they're not even looking at medical reasons why somebody might want a scrip for birth control pills besides the self satisfied twats refusing to sell other prophylactics.

I would support someone refusing a draft on moral grounds...a priest refusing to marry a couple on moral grounds (I wouldn't like it, but I'd support it), but I take issue with other refusals.

Pharmacists, for example. I don't think they should have the option to refuse to serve people, or fill prescriptions on moral grounds. I don't think doctors should be allowed to refuse to treat patients on moral grounds. I don't think teachers should be allowed to refuse to teach certain children on moral grounds.

I've never heard a case of a teacher refusing to teach a student...but the pharmacist and doctor examples are becoming more common. What are your views?

I agree. A gay person shouldn't be fired by his employer on moral grounds, but it is acceptable if the homosexual man wanted to be a Catholic Priest.

I really don't know, on this. I'm indifferent to the whole pharmacy thing - there are a lot of pharmacies in the world - and obviously against just refusing to serve someone because of arbitrary differences… but take the example of doctors refusing to give abortions… I know a lot of people who would refuse if they were doctors (one friend of mine, very devout Catholic who's aiming to become a doctor)… it depends on the individual hypothetical example, I suppose.

Yes, but you have strayed from that to assuming that Creationism, brought up in any science class, would be taught as fact instead of simply another view.

Unless you specifically state, "This isn't science but we're going to talk about it anyways," then anything you teach in a science class will be assumed by your students (who would logically come to this conclusion) to be science.

Of course, I never said anything about teaching it as "fact". If a teacher starts teaching anything in science as "fact", she has already strayed from teaching the material. In science, we deal with hypotheses, theories, and measurements. "Facts" are the realm of the absolute.

In any case, if it's in the curriculum as a FACT, and you disagree, leave the profession.

You don't have to leave the profession. You leave that one particular job that is asking you to do something blatantly unprofessional, as I would leave any job asking me to falsify data in the lab.

Yes I would. Professionalism is following the guidelines of your profession.

Exactly! And the guidelines of your profession are not set by individual employers. It is completely possible for a school to set a curriculum in front of you that it would be unprofessional to teach, as teaching it would break the guidelines of your profession.

For teachers, we have a professional code of conduct, but we also have a legal responsibility to teach the curriculum, whether we agree with it or not. If we really object, we should not teach, and leave the profession. You are talking about professionalism as though your personal ethics supercede your professional ones. Legally, they can not.

Based on this logic, if my employer told me to falsify data (which is not, by the way, illegal unless you are doing the research for the government), it would be unprofessional of me to refuse to do so. Of course, that isn't how it actually works. I am not talking personal ethics here - I am talking about the ethics that govern a given profession - and they are not determined by a particular employer or government. My profession states that it is unethical and thus unprofessional to falsify data, no matter how much the employer wants me to do it.

The role of a teacher is to impart knowledge to his students to the best of his ability. That is the role of his profession. If a school (or government) asks him to teach lies or incorrect material, it would be unprofessional of him to do so.

By your logic, a teacher who was told to teach out of a given textbook, but knew that some of the information was outdated (so, basically, every biology textbook out there), would be unprofessional if she gave the students updated information. I would argue that keeping up with the field she is teaching and giving students the best information available is the height of professionalism for a teacher.

Finally, you are aware that all teaching is not curriculum-based, correct? Thus, the profession of teacher cannot be bound to a curriculum before all else.

I don't disagree. However, nothing in a teacher's code of professional conduct (http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/fieldexperiences/nav03.cfm?nav03=25792&nav02=25791&nav01=25772) that superceeds the curriculum, which is designed by the government.

There is no mention of curriculum anywhere in that code of conduct. There is a mention that you have to fulfill contractual obligations, which I agree with, so long as the obligations themselves do not contradict the duties of a teacher.

However, given a false curriculum, I would say that the following rules would definitely supercede it:

4) The teacher treats pupils with dignity and respect and is considerate of their circumstances.
8) The teacher protests the assignment of duties for which the teacher is not qualified or conditions which make it difficult to render professional service.
18) The teacher acts in a manner which maintains the honor and dignity of the profession.
19) The teacher does not engage in activities which adversely affect the quality of the teacher’s professional service.

4) One is certainly not treating pupils with dignity or respect if one tries to teach them false information.
8) It would be rather difficult to render professional service (aka imparting knowledge to students) if you are told to lie to them.
18) Teaching false curriculum would not maintain honor or dignity in any profession.
19) Teaching false information would adversely affect the quality of the teacher's service - as they would be imparting false information as correct.

Don't avoid my request, or try to rephrase it. I never talked about assigning a culture. I will not defend a position I did not make. I resent the fact that you continue to make up my argument for me.

I'm not making up any argument. It is clearly in your own quotes:

Whatever Dem...show me a secondary level curriculum that does not talk about the culture, the philosophies, and the history of science, or drop it. You are clearly talking about a different class than I.

If a science curriculum talks about the culture of science, then it is quite obviously assigning a culture to science. What culture is it?

I challenge you to find me a secondary level science curriculum that does not mention historical perspectives,

It depends on what you mean by "historical perspectives". If you mean a science class that says, "This was the social impact of X theory," I will show you every single science class I have ever taken. That is not the purpose of a science class.

If you mean a science class that says, "Dalton laid out a theory in which atoms were indivisible. Then came the gold-foil experiment. Evidence now suggested that the atoms were not indivisible, and, in fact, had smaller part. Because of this, the theory was changed to......." or "There were two competing ideas, those of evolutionary theory and those of Lamarkism. Over time, evidence was found to disprove Lamarkism and further evidence backing the theory of evolutionary theory were found....." Those things are certainly historical, but are integral to teaching how the theories we currently have were arrived at using the scientific method. They are examples of how the method is applied, and have been applied, over the course of history.

various philosophies

I have never once taken a science class in all my years of schooling that discussed any philosophy but the scientific method, and I have had a *lot* of science classes.

and cultural views of science.

Again, I have never once in my life had a class that talked about this. It is irrelevant to learning about science. Things like "cultural views" are generally taught in a history class.

You can't, because as you finally admit below:

There is nothing at all in that quote inconsistent with anything else I have said here.

No, your argument has. Don't tell me what the parameters of my argument are.

You cannot argue with a statement I have made without accepting the parameters of my argument unless you specifically state that you are going outside them, in which case you cease to be arguing with my statemetns....

Yes yes, and we only teach math as math, and history as history and sewing as sewing:rolleyes:

I certainly hope you don't teach history as math, or math as history, or sewing as history.

Either you accept as you said earlier, that TEACHING SCIENCE CLASS includes history, philosophies, and different viewpoints, or you don't.

I never said any such thing. Now who is trying to twist things?

I said that teaching science includes teaching the history of science, as you must show how a theory was arrived at. I said that teaching science includes a single philosophy - the scientific method. And I never once said that teaching science involves teaching different viewpoints. It might involve that, if there are truly competing theories that all meet the scientific requirement of a theory (ie. lots of evidence, testing, no contrary evidence). However, you don't teach the "Science is wrong," viewpoint in a science class - it would be idiotic. You teach the viewpoints based upon the scientific method - the basis of science.

Saying 'science is science' means absolutely nothing.

Science is the scientific method, and the theories that have been arrived at using it. It is not religious views (ie. ID or Creationism). The only way you can ethically bring religious views into a science class is as an example of what science is not.

Actually, the discussion began as a suggestion that the science teacher refusing to teach ID on moral grounds was okay.

Technically correct, although that was not a part of the discussion that I was a part of.

I agree... Unfortunately, it doesn't make much difference. They will always (and should always) be allowed to refuse service on medical grounds; and so far they have proven very resourceful in finding medical grounds to use as pretexts for "moral" refusals.

Actually, there have been pharmacists that were very clear in stating that they were refusing to fill a prescription for birth control or the morning after pill for moral reasons. These people have been lobbying for laws to protect them - to make it illegal to fire them if they refuse on that basis. Unfortunately, in some places, they have gotten such laws passed.

No, science is based on theories, and specific ideologies. And pretending it is the only belief system out there is incredibly narrow-minded. Generally this problem is solved by a mandated curriculum. If ID and evolution are both in the curriculum, the teacher can not legally refuse.

Just nitpicking:)

Science is based on scientific theories. Should a curriculum be changed to bring in non-scientific theories then what? creationism or ID may be true for some types, but its not and never will be science.

I won't argue about the legality part because I don't know how it works in the US.

Um....A Catholic priest asked to, for instance, marry a couple of Mormons, would be asked to do something that "constitutes a change in his current profession." His profession is to minister to Catholics - including providing Catholic wedding ceremonies. Anyone who is not Catholic or who does not meet the prerequisites for a Catholic wedding ceremony would fall outside his profession....

mm good point.

I don't think anyone should have the right to refuse fighting in a strictly defensive war..


When was the last time anyone ever fought a strictly defensive war?

There are different cultures and societies, and different moralities. What criteria would apply to a Universal Ethic/Morality? By what criteria do we decide that killing in war, refusing someone treatment, declining to teach set curriculum, discrimating againsethnic or religious minorities or whatever is Right or wrong?

It is the powerful in any society who determine what is truth, right, good and beautiful.The only way to uphold freedom of individual conscienceand to resist these socially acceptable definitions is to form alternative (underground) societies. Of course there isa price - jail, unemployment, physical harmetc.


Tough choices

I agree. A gay person shouldn't be fired by his employer on moral grounds, but it is acceptable if the homosexual man wanted to be a Catholic Priest.
What an odd interpretation.

Unless you specifically state, "This isn't science but we're going to talk about it anyways," then anything you teach in a science class will be assumed by your students (who would logically come to this conclusion) to be science.
Yes, because students are idiots.

What an odd interpretation.
There's lots of homosexual Catholic priests. They don't necessarily advertise it, and it's likely that far more of them actually are celibate than the ones who get caught buggering choirboys, but they're out there.

There's lots of homosexual Catholic priests. They don't necessarily advertise it, and it's likely that far more of them actually are celibate than the ones who get caught buggering choirboys, but they're out there.
I have no doubt of that. It's still an odd interpretation of what Sinuhue had said.

I have no doubt of that. It's still an odd interpretation of what Sinuhue had said.
It is pretty much the opposite of what most people would argue, I'd imagine.

Dan Savage in a recent column cited a case of a woman who was raped, phoning around for the 'morning-after' pill (or the 'abortion' pill? I'm still a bit unclear on the difference, but anyway),

The morning after "pill," is essentially a very high dose of the traditional birth control pill. It creates hormonal conditions that prevent implantation, or even delay ovulation for a couple of days if it hasn't happened yet. They usually make you take a pregnancy test before giving it to you, because it isn't meant for people who are already pregnant. It prevents implantation, and thus pregnancy, but not always fertilization. I put 'pill' in quotes, because it isn't always actually one pill. Sometimes it is several pills.

The "abortion drug" RU486, really creates a miscarriage of an implanted and growing fetus. This brings all the attendent problems of a misscarriage. If you think there's a lot of blood and cramping with a period, you ain't seen nothin' till you've seen a miscarriage.

No, science is based on theories, and specific ideologies. And pretending it is the only belief system out there is incredibly narrow-minded. Generally this problem is solved by a mandated curriculum. If ID and evolution are both in the curriculum, the teacher can not legally refuse.

Just nitpicking

True. But a science teacher is in the position to "teach" ID as "Intelligent design is the hypothesis that because you don't understand evolution, it's wrong."

And provide only one test question on ID.
"Which problem with the theory of evolution is addressed by the theory of intelligent design?"
a) That evolution is... like... hard.
b) If we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?
c) That there were some mistakes and a few outright frauds in the history of inquiry into evolution, so it must be false.
d) Trick question. Intelligent design isn't really a theory. Theories have to be testable and provide a basis for predictions.

You don't have to leave the profession. You leave that one particular job that is asking you to do something blatantly unprofessional, as I would leave any job asking me to falsify data in the lab. Well it depends on how much crap has made it into what curriculum. For example, in Canada, the curriculum is a provincial document. So, I may want to stay teaching, but not be required to teach ID AS A SCIENCE (if it were simply in there to show an opposing viewpoint to science, I'd have NO problem with it), but I could not find a teaching job in that province that would fit my requirements. I could relocate...but frankly, I wouldn't be willing. I'd change careers.

Now I'm not sure how the curriculum is set up in the US, if it is state-wide, or county-wide or what. If you're willing to move out of the jurisdiction you are teaching in, then no, you don't have to switch professions. If you are NOT willing to move, then unless you want to teach what is written in the curriculum, you have little option.



Exactly! And the guidelines of your profession are not set by individual employers. It is completely possible for a school to set a curriculum in front of you that it would be unprofessional to teach, as teaching it would break the guidelines of your profession. Again, I think you are confused. Schools do not set curriculum. I believe I have stated this fact to you on a number of occasions. So no, in Canada at least, your statement is utterly false.



Based on this logic, if my employer told me to falsify data (which is not, by the way, illegal unless you are doing the research for the government), it would be unprofessional of me to refuse to do so. Of course, that isn't how it actually works. I am not talking personal ethics here - I am talking about the ethics that govern a given profession - and they are not determined by a particular employer or government. My profession states that it is unethical and thus unprofessional to falsify data, no matter how much the employer wants me to do it. Did I mention I'm tired of the way you like to twist unsimilar things in order to pretend they are alike? No? Well I am. We were talking about teaching, teaching, and teaching. Not doing research. I linked to a specific professional code for you to peruse. Now, if a curriculum were introduced that violated our professional code, let's say the new curriculum involved teaching that arabs were dirty terrorists, the profession AS A WHOLE would protest. We would be called upon to strike. The curriculum can only be modified in consulatation with the Teacher's Association and the Minstry of Education. It can not violate our professional code.

Let me put my quote back in the original context, instead of the one you've tried to create for it:

For teachers, we have a professional code of conduct, but we also have a legal responsibility to teach the curriculum, whether we agree with it or not. If we really object, we should not teach, and leave the profession. You are talking about professionalism as though your personal ethics supercede your professional ones. Legally, they can not.
Don't try to extrapolate this to other professions. Every professional code is different. What I have said above is true for teachers.





The role of a teacher is to impart knowledge to his students to the best of his ability. That is the role of his profession. If a school (or government) asks him to teach lies or incorrect material, it would be unprofessional of him to do so. By your definition, which I refuse. A professional does his or her job whether they like that job or not. They fit their job description. Again, it is unprofessional to violate the legal requirements of your job (THE CURRICULUM). It is ethical to do so if the legal requirments are morally repugnant to you...but the risk of following your ethics instead of your professional code is, you will lose your job. As someone said earlier, there are consequences for standing up for what you believe in. All I am saying is that losing your job is the consequence of not DOING your job.


By your logic, a teacher who was told to teach out of a given textbook, but knew that some of the information was outdated (so, basically, every biology textbook out there), would be unprofessional if she gave the students updated information. I would argue that keeping up with the field she is teaching and giving students the best information available is the height of professionalism for a teacher. Dem, you really have no idea what you are talking about. And that's okay. You aren't a teacher, you have no understanding of what the curriculum is. So forgive me if I dismiss your suppositions as baseless. A textbook is not a course. A textbook is a resource. The curriculum is kept up to date, and leeway for new advancements or events is always written into the curriculum. So no, once again, your statement is utterly false.


Finally, you are aware that all teaching is not curriculum-based, correct? Thus, the profession of teacher cannot be bound to a curriculum before all else.
No Dem. No and no. Let me state it for you, yet again, though I'm sure you'll find a way to misunderstand: A TEACHER IS BOUND TO THE CURRICULUM BEFORE ALL ELSE. How you have decided the OPPOSITE is quite beyond me. Ridiculous. Perhaps you should actually look at a curriculum, and learn instead of guessing. It's not that your ignorance is appalling...I don't expect you to know everything about a profession you are not a member of, but I dislike intensely your suppositions about it. It would be like me coming into your lab telling you how your job should be done, ignoring the way it IS done.

A curriculum is made up of learning outcomes. These usually include knowledge (specific facts), attitudes (one of which in the curriculum I will link to is: OPEN MINDEDNESS AND RESPECT FOR THE VIEWS OF OTHERS...which does NOT mean accepting ID as fact, just recognising that some people believe it over science), skills, connections among science, technology and society (one point is: explain for instance how science and technology are influenced and supported by society...i.e., how ID if popular enough, may quash certain advances, or how religion 300 years ago, or a culture 400 years ago impacted science and technology in that area).

To read a science curriculum, check out the Alberta SCIENCE 20/30 (http://www.education.gov.ab.ca/k_12/curriculum/bySubject/science/sci2030.pdf). The main point is to teach students the whys and the hows of science, but in doing so, there is also a requirment that they understand why and how things developed the way they did in relation to history, philosophy and culture.


There is no mention of curriculum anywhere in that code of conduct. There is a mention that you have to fulfill contractual obligations, which I agree with, so long as the obligations themselves do not contradict the duties of a teacher. The contractual oblilgations of a teacher are first and foremost to teach the curriculum. Now do you see the connection?

However, given a false curriculum, I would say that the following rules would definitely supercede it:

4) The teacher treats pupils with dignity and respect and is considerate of their circumstances.
8) The teacher protests the assignment of duties for which the teacher is not qualified or conditions which make it difficult to render professional service.
18) The teacher acts in a manner which maintains the honor and dignity of the profession.
19) The teacher does not engage in activities which adversely affect the quality of the teacher’s professional service.

4) One is certainly not treating pupils with dignity or respect if one tries to teach them false information.
8) It would be rather difficult to render professional service (aka imparting knowledge to students) if you are told to lie to them.
18) Teaching false curriculum would not maintain honor or dignity in any profession.
19) Teaching false information would adversely affect the quality of the teacher's service - as they would be imparting false information as correct. Blah blah blah. All very nice Dem. Nonetheless, as usually you are wrong. All of these things could be argued, yes, if a curricular change was made that the Association did not support. And this is actually how changes GET made by the way....teachers lobbying the ministry for curricular changes. Nonetheless, despite the way YOU want to interpret it, the fact remains. You teach the curriculum or you lose your job. Period.



I'm not making up any argument. It is clearly in your own quotes:



If a science curriculum talks about the culture of science, then it is quite obviously assigning a culture to science. What culture is it? That is as pointless as saying: If a marshmallow melts in fire, then fire must melt in a marshmallow.

Whatever Dem...show me a secondary level curriculum that does not talk about the culture, the philosophies, and the history of science, or drop it. You are clearly talking about a different class than I.
You are pretending that science as we know it has always been thus. The CULTURE I refer to is the culture of the time period, that drives, influences, or impedes science. The culture of the period in Gallileo's time for example...or the culture in the period of the Mayan astronomers. The culture of the West right now...or even 100 years ago. Not the same culture. Not the same motivations. Not the same view of science.


It depends on what you mean by "historical perspectives". If you mean a science class that says, "This was the social impact of X theory," I will show you every single science class I have ever taken. That is not the purpose of a science class. I'm unclear...so you've never had a science class that said, this was the social impact of X theory? Funny. That's exactly a part of the curriculum, as is what you've written below. Try as you might Dem, you do not dictate what is taught. If your teachers chose to gloss over those sections, that's fine...they are part of the learning outcomes, but a minor part. No doubt they figured it was enough to let you read the information in your text on your own time about what social impact a new invention or theory had. Or it could be that the curriculum in your area doesn't include it, but I'm not about to take your word for it. I said show me, not pretend you have a clue about what you're talking about.


If you mean a science class that says, "Dalton laid out a theory in which atoms were indivisible. Then came the gold-foil experiment. Evidence now suggested that the atoms were not indivisible, and, in fact, had smaller part. Because of this, the theory was changed to......." or "There were two competing ideas, those of evolutionary theory and those of Lamarkism. Over time, evidence was found to disprove Lamarkism and further evidence backing the theory of evolutionary theory were found....." Those things are certainly historical, but are integral to teaching how the theories we currently have were arrived at using the scientific method. They are examples of how the method is applied, and have been applied, over the course of history.



I have never once taken a science class in all my years of schooling that discussed any philosophy but the scientific method, and I have had a *lot* of science classes. So, religious beliefs that impacted the scientific method (Copernicus, Gallileo) were never taught to you in science class? Wow. How incredibly amazing. Of course, I don't believe you, because I've still yet to see a curriculum that would not incorporate that as a description of how the scientific method came to be. I think you have a selective memory. Of course, I am talking about scientific philosophies, and you of course are pretending there is only one. Aristotle did not have the same philosophy as Sir Isaac Newton. Perhaps the same goes...but not the same methods, beliefs, or practices. Those differences in scientific beliefs and methods are most certainly covered in the science curriculum.



Again, I have never once in my life had a class that talked about this. It is irrelevant to learning about science. Things like "cultural views" are generally taught in a history class. Sure Dem. Againt...Aristotle compared to Sir Isaac Newton. Mayan astronomers compared to current ones. Different philosophies, different takes on science...same drive to discover. Irrelevant, right?:rolleyes:



You cannot argue with a statement I have made without accepting the parameters of my argument unless you specifically state that you are going outside them, in which case you cease to be arguing with my statemetns.... Hmmm...your modus operandi expressed in a single statement....I've said it many times...you are not talking about the same thing I am...you are talking about a specific case, and trying to make everything else fit into that case. You are also talking about a profession you are clearly clueless about.



I certainly hope you don't teach history as math, or math as history, or sewing as history. No, but history has it's place in math, to show how math has evolved, or the uses it has been put to. And the history of sewing is of course a part of learning how to sew. How incredibly obtuse must you be to not accept this?



I never said any such thing. Now who is trying to twist things?

I said that teaching science includes teaching the history of science, as you must show how a theory was arrived at. I said that teaching science includes a single philosophy - the scientific method. And I never once said that teaching science involves teaching different viewpoints. It might involve that, if there are truly competing theories that all meet the scientific requirement of a theory (ie. lots of evidence, testing, no contrary evidence). However, you don't teach the "Science is wrong," viewpoint in a science class - it would be idiotic. You teach the viewpoints based upon the scientific method - the basis of science.Again, you are speaking of a specific case (the one in Kansas) and pretending it applies to this discussion. It doesn't. Never have I said that teaching that science is wrong IN A SCIENCE CLASS, is what integrating different philosophies or viewpoints is about. You could absolutely mention ID in a science class as an example of how other people understand things. Just as you could mention how the Mayan's saw the world in which they were conducting experiments. I am not arguing the point you keep making. It has nothing to do with anything I've said. THE HISTORY, PHILOSOPHIES AND CULTURE SURROUNDING SCIENCE ARE TAUGHT IN SCIENCE CLASS IN SECONDARY SCHOOL. You seem to be taking history, philosophy and culture in isolation, as separate subjects that of course would not be taught in full in a science classroom. That is not what I am talking about. The history of scientific discoveries, the culture in which those discoveries were made, and the philosophies that drove certain research...are you clear yet?

Science is the scientific method, and the theories that have been arrived at using it. It is not religious views (ie. ID or Creationism). The only way you can ethically bring religious views into a science class is as an example of what science is not. As opposing viewpoints of how the world is ordered, yes. Hallelujah, I think you finally understand! Then again...



Technically correct, although that was not a part of the discussion that I was a part of. Then stop replying to me if you were not a part of the discussion. Because I am tired of you saying, "Well I am arguing this, but I'm going to make these wild claims about a profession I am completely ignorant about, and then when you call me on it, I'm going to say, oh, I wasn't a part of that discussion.":rolleyes: Funny...you're the only one who didn't seem to understand the discussion you WERE involved in.

Science is based on scientific theories. Should a curriculum be changed to bring in non-scientific theories then what? creationism or ID may be true for some types, but its not and never will be science.

I won't argue about the legality part because I don't know how it works in the US.If ID were legally brought into the curriculum, it would not be taught as science. It isn't science. The only way it could conceivably become a part of the science curriculum would be to highlight an opposing view, i.e.: This is what science says, and this is what a different view says.

Now I'm not arguing the Kansas case. I know nothing about it, and could care less.

The science curriculum already brings in non-scientific theories...usually in historical or social perspective. I.E....these people used to think that the Northern Lights were their dead, dancing in the sky...now science tells us that the Northern Lights are actually....

See? Not replacing. Not competing. Giving perspective.

Now if you lived in some nut-job state that wanted to teach ID as the only truth, these are your options:

Lobby to change the curriculum!
Teach the curriculum.
If the curriculum is not changed, teach another class if they'll transfer you, or quit and go somewhere else where nutjobs don't write your curriculum. OR change professions.

True. But a science teacher is in the position to "teach" ID as "Intelligent design is the hypothesis that because you don't understand evolution, it's wrong."

And provide only one test question on ID.
"Which problem with the theory of evolution is addressed by the theory of intelligent design?"
a) That evolution is... like... hard.
b) If we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?
c) That there were some mistakes and a few outright frauds in the history of inquiry into evolution, so it must be false.
d) Trick question. Intelligent design isn't really a theory. Theories have to be testable and provide a basis for predictions.

And the award for best question on a science exam goes to...

I think paying my taxes is immoral, I think I'll refuse to do it from here on out.

I know you're being sarcastic, but perhaps you need not be. Henry David Thoreau refused to pay taxes because he didn't support the Mexican War, and he was jailed on account of it. Civil disobedience.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761552346/Thoreau_Henry_David.html

I said that teaching science includes teaching the history of science, as you must show how a theory was arrived at. I said that teaching science includes a single philosophy - the scientific method. And I never once said that teaching science involves teaching different viewpoints. It might involve that, if there are truly competing theories that all meet the scientific requirement of a theory (ie. lots of evidence, testing, no contrary evidence). However, you don't teach the "Science is wrong," viewpoint in a science class - it would be idiotic. You teach the viewpoints based upon the scientific method - the basis of science.
In science, there is a base belief that what is comes from what was; that there is always some cause for an effect, some form for energy to change toward; that something cannot come from nothing. This belief is based on empirical observation, which is by definition part of the method of doing science. This is a philosophy of science, which is, in itself, not "the scientific method".

Science does contain more than one philosophy.

In science, there is a base belief that what is comes from what was; that there is always some cause for an effect, some form for energy to change toward; that something cannot come from nothing. This belief is based on empirical observation, which is by definition part of the method of doing science. This is a philosophy of science, which is, in itself, not "the scientific method".

Science does contain more than one philosophy. Bless you...sometimes I think my brain is leaking out of my ears when I debate with Dem...that I'm not saying what I am sure I'm saying or something....

Bless you...sometimes I think my brain is leaking out of my ears when I debate with Dem...that I'm not saying what I am sure I'm saying or something....
I get that feeling too, it is nice to know someone else intelligent does, I was starting to worry about myself :p

I get that feeling too, it is nice to know someone else intelligent does, I was starting to worry about myself :p
:D

Yes, because students are idiots.

I never said students were idiots. If a person starts teaching an idea in a science class without saying that the given idea is not science, the logical conclusion for a student (who does not know as much as the teacher, unless something is wrong) is that they are learning science.

And based on the complete lack of knowledge most people demonstrate of science in this country - even of the most basic information in the very first chapter of any middle school or high school science textbook, I would chalk a lot of it up to "students are lazy," more than "students are idiots." Most don't read or try to understand the concepts that aren't beaten into their heads by the teacher. Thus, if a teacher doesn't concentrate on the scientific method throughout the class, discussing what is and is not science, the students aren't ever going to learn that distinction.

Now I'm not sure how the curriculum is set up in the US, if it is state-wide, or county-wide or what.

Generally, county-wide. Some things may be decided school-by-school, especially in private schools.

Again, I think you are confused. Schools do not set curriculum. I believe I have stated this fact to you on a number of occasions. So no, in Canada at least, your statement is utterly false.

Is the profession of teacher limited to Canada? Does only Canada have teachers? No!. Thus, the government of Canada is one possible employer in the profession - one possible entity that sets curriculum.

And, in some cases, schools do set curriculum. In others, counties do it. In others, states may set certain guidelines. In others, a nation's government may do it. In universities, the curriculum is generally set by the particular teacher teaching the course, with only a very few sparse guidelines set on what they do.

The profession of "teacher" is not limited to your tiny little world!

Did I mention I'm tired of the way you like to twist unsimilar things in order to pretend they are alike? No? Well I am. We were talking about teaching, teaching, and teaching.

Funny, I thought we were talking about professionalism, which (at least in the case of teaching) you seem to set as "doing whatever your employer tells you to do."

Now, if a curriculum were introduced that violated our professional code, let's say the new curriculum involved teaching that arabs were dirty terrorists, the profession AS A WHOLE would protest.

Now I am really confused. Earlier, you stated that a curriculum that taught lies and bigotry would still be a valid curriculum, and thus a teacher would be unprofessional to refuse to teach it - even if they quit in order to refuse. Now you are changing your tune. All of a sudden a curriculum can viloate your professional code, and thus teaching it would be unprofessional? Good! That is all I have been arguing.

Don't try to extrapolate this to other professions. Every professional code is different. What I have said above is true for teachers.

(a) The term professionalism applies to all professions. The codes are different - the term essentially means the same thing - following the code.

(b) You keep changing what you say. At first it was that refusing to teach any curriculum, even by quitting, demonstrated a lack of professionalism. Now you admit that a curriculum can break the code and thus teaching it would be unprofessional.

By your definition, which I refuse.

So the first priority of a teacher is not to impart knowledge to her students? I really, really feel for your students.

A professional does his or her job whether they like that job or not. They fit their job description. Again, it is unprofessional to violate the legal requirements of your job (THE CURRICULUM). It is ethical to do so if the legal requirments are morally repugnant to you...but the risk of following your ethics instead of your professional code is, you will lose your job.

And now you go back to your old argument. You have already stated that a curriculum can violate the professional code. Thus, in that case, getting fired for not teaching it (or quitting in protest) is actually the most professional thing you can do....

As someone said earlier, there are consequences for standing up for what you believe in. All I am saying is that losing your job is the consequence of not DOING your job.

And losing your job may show more loyalty to your profession than keeping it, depending on what your employer is asking you to do....

Dem, you really have no idea what you are talking about. And that's okay. You aren't a teacher, you have no understanding of what the curriculum is.

I'm currently teaching a class - albeit as a teacher's assitstant, but I am teaching. Care to revise your statement?

So forgive me if I dismiss your suppositions as baseless. A textbook is not a course.

Obviously, you have limited experience of teaching. In some classes, a textbook is all a teacher is given as a curriculum. The rest, they devise themselves.

No Dem. No and no. Let me state it for you, yet again, though I'm sure you'll find a way to misunderstand: A TEACHER IS BOUND TO THE CURRICULUM BEFORE ALL ELSE.

That's lovely. And here I thought a teacher's first priority should be his students. There goes all the respect I have for the profession of teacher....

Oh wait, not all teachers hold the view that their students are of such little importance.

The contractual oblilgations of a teacher are first and foremost to teach the curriculum. Now do you see the connection?

But the profession of teacher, in most people's minds anyways (apparently not yours) is first and foremost to, well, teach.

Nonetheless, despite the way YOU want to interpret it, the fact remains. You teach the curriculum or you lose your job. Period.

You keep saying this as if I have ever argued with it. I have not. My argument has been that, in a case where the curriculum itself violated the professional code of a teacher, losing your job is the most professional thing you can do. That teacher should wear her pink slip as a badge of professionalism - of her commitment to her profession.

That is as pointless as saying: If a marshmallow melts in fire, then fire must melt in a marshmallow.

No, it isn't. You said, "culture of science," thus you are stating that science has a culture. There is no twisting here - it is right there in the English you used. If you meant to say something different, by all means change it.

You are pretending that science as we know it has always been thus. The CULTURE I refer to is the culture of the time period, that drives, influences, or impedes science. The culture of the period in Gallileo's time for example...or the culture in the period of the Mayan astronomers. The culture of the West right now...or even 100 years ago. Not the same culture. Not the same motivations. Not the same view of science.

You don't, however, teach the culture. You simply teach how the culture affected it. Yes, the fact that Galileo was declared a heretic for his views is mentioned. The views that were widely held are mentioned. But they all go back to teaching the underlying concept - the scientific method and how it progresses. They are used in demonstrating that Galileo was properly using science, by altering his theories to include new evidence, while others were not.

You don't, however, discuss, say, the Spanish Inquisition in science. Nor do you make any pretenses that the history itself is science. You use it only to demonstrate a progression.

I'm unclear...so you've never had a science class that said, this was the social impact of X theory?

Nope. I've had teachers that mentioned the Scopes Monkey Trial and other such things as extra little tidbits, but I've never had a discussion of social impact in a science class. Now, I did have it in an ethics class. I did have it in a history class, but never in a science class.

I said show me, not pretend you have a clue about what you're talking about.

I can't exactly show you curricula from the classes I've had over the past 20 years, Sin. They change from year to year, and now that I'm in college, from professor to professor.

So, religious beliefs that impacted the scientific method (Copernicus, Gallileo) were never taught to you in science class?

(a) Religious beliefs never impacted the scientific method. They impacted the progression of science, but that is not the same thing.

(b) No, religious beliefs were never taught. They were mentioned, as I have said is appropriate, in reference to how and why they are not science. They were mentioned as things that impeded the progress of scientists. But they were never taught.

Of course, I am talking about scientific philosophies, and you of course are pretending there is only one.

You seem to be confused as to what science is, my dear. Science is a subset of philosophy. It is, specifically, a logical method - the scientific method.

Aristotle did not have the same philosophy as Sir Isaac Newton.

Personal philosophy? Of course not! They lived in vastly different times. However, the core of the scientific method did not change between them - the logic and empiricism necessary didn't change in thousands of years.

Sure Dem. Againt...Aristotle compared to Sir Isaac Newton. Mayan astronomers compared to current ones. Different philosophies, different takes on science...same drive to discover. Irrelevant, right?

I have never, in a science class, discussed cultural views of these people. Only the actual scientific discoveries they made, and sometimes, how they made them. Because the logic and empiricism of science remain the same with any culture surrounding them, the rest of the culture is left to a science class.

You are also talking about a profession you are clearly clueless about.

Well, if the profession of teacher were limited to Canada, you might have a point. What actually seems to be happening is that you are completely clueless to the fact that Canada is not the only place that has teachers, and everyone else doesn't do it the same way Canada does...

No, but history has it's place in math, to show how math has evolved, or the uses it has been put to. And the history of sewing is of course a part of learning how to sew. How incredibly obtuse must you be to not accept this?

At what point have I not accepted this. I said that you cannot teach history as math. That you cannot teach religion as science. That you cannot teach history as sewing. Every time I have said this, you have started screaming about them being connected, something I have never disputed.

If you do not think that we can teach history as math, then you have no argument with me here, so stop arguing!

Never have I said that teaching that science is wrong IN A SCIENCE CLASS, is what integrating different philosophies or viewpoints is about. You could absolutely mention ID in a science class as an example of how other people understand things.

I have never disputed this. In fact, I have explicitly stated that you could do this. So, again, what are you arguing with?

In science, there is a base belief that what is comes from what was; that there is always some cause for an effect, some form for energy to change toward; that something cannot come from nothing. This belief is based on empirical observation, which is by definition part of the method of doing science. This is a philosophy of science, which is, in itself, not "the scientific method".

You are making the same mistake that IDers often make - that science assumes that all things can be studied by the scientific method. It does not. There are scientists that believe that there is "always some cause for an effect, etc...." and there are scientists who believe otherwise. But those are personal beliefs, not those integral to science.

When was the last time anyone ever fought a strictly defensive war?

I said nothing about my expectation that it would happen, only a matter of principle on the condition it does.

Well, if the profession of teacher were limited to Canada, you might have a point. What actually seems to be happening is that you are completely clueless to the fact that Canada is not the only place that has teachers, and everyone else doesn't do it the same way Canada does...
Do you know a teacher personally or are you a teacher? If not, she has more authority on the subject than you do even if she is Canadian.

I never said students were idiots. If a person starts teaching an idea in a science class without saying that the given idea is not science, the logical conclusion for a student (who does not know as much as the teacher, unless something is wrong) is that they are learning science.
Well, I guess it's a good thing that students can make illogical associative connections, then.

You are making the same mistake that IDers often make - that science assumes that all things can be studied by the scientific method. It does not. There are scientists that believe that there is "always some cause for an effect, etc...." and there are scientists who believe otherwise. But those are personal beliefs, not those integral to science.
I make no such assumption in what I state. It is a philosophy of science. It leads to the conclusion that those things that cannot be studied by science should not be considered as science.

Do you know a teacher personally or are you a teacher? If not, she has more authority on the subject than you do even if she is Canadian.
LOL :)

So, if you were teaching a class in English grammar, and a kid stood up and asked you about Latin grammar, you would be required to teach about Latin?

I think not.

In a science class, only science can be taught. If a student brought up ID, you could say only the following with good conscience: "ID is an idea that some people have about the world. It is a philosophical viewpoint. However, it is not testable or falsifiable. Thus, it is not science. If you would like to explore it, you can do so outside of my science classroom."

You rule. :D

1. Someone please define "moral issues." What I've noticed is that people tend to equate "religion" with "moral issues." Because people tend to reject religion, they tend to reject "moral issues." Of course, it's silly to do so as even the most secular society, if it makes rules and laws that regulate how its members behave rightly or wrongly, engages in the "legislation of morality."

2. Once we've defined "moral issues," write the definition down on a piece of paper, crumple it up and throw it away: the reason given for refusing to render a particular service is completely irrevelant. A human being cannot be free while being compelled to perform a service that he or she does not want to perform. It is that simple. Sure, a pharmacist could find another job. But then, a patient could find another doctor/pharmacist, too. I prefer the latter as it leaves the pharmacist free to do whatever, and the patient still gets medicine.

So if I hire you to work in my company answering the phone and you "don't want to", should the client call another company or should I fire you?

Do you know a teacher personally

Yes. Quite a few, actually.

or are you a teacher?

In a way, yes. A teacher's assistant at the moment, with my own classroom to teach once a week.

If not, she has more authority on the subject than you do even if she is Canadian.

How could she possibly be an authority on teaching in other areas if she has only taught in Canada? And since is it obvious that she seems to think that the way things are done in Canada is used throughout the entirety of the teaching profession..

I make no such assumption in what I state. It is a philosophy of science. It leads to the conclusion that those things that cannot be studied by science should not be considered as science.

If science truly assumed that all things have a cause, etc., then science would have to claim that there are no things which cannot be studied by science (like our friend in the other thread). Of course, since there is no base assumption in science that all things have a cause, etc., we can admit that some things cannot be studied by science.

So if I hire you to work in my company answering the phone and you "don't want to", should the client call another company or should I fire you?

I think, in this case, he was talking about a pharmacist who is the boss - who owns their own pharmacy. Thus, if you own a company and you answer the phone, but you don't want to talk to the client, the client should call another company. You are, after all, the boss.

If science truly assumed that all things have a cause, etc., then science would have to claim that there are no things which cannot be studied by science (like our friend in the other thread).
What things are there that have no cause? The scientist's position is not even capable of assuming things without cause, because if they are things, they have some sort of empirically existence, and if they exist then there can be a way to study them. If they literally have no cause, then they are supernatural.

To assume non-empirical existence is a philosophical stance.

Of course, since there is no base assumption in science that all things have a cause, etc., we can admit that some things cannot be studied by science.
We can admit that, anyway, as we identify the supernatural.

You rule. :D
She does. ;) But in that post she was off-base, as, in the context of the thread, even if Latin is discussed, it is still English that is being taught.

I think, in this case, he was talking about a pharmacist who is the boss - who owns their own pharmacy. Thus, if you own a company and you answer the phone, but you don't want to talk to the client, the client should call another company. You are, after all, the boss.

If he's his own boss, sure, he can drive himself out of business however he wants. If he is not, however...

How could she possibly be an authority on teaching in other areas if she has only taught in Canada? And since is it obvious that she seems to think that the way things are done in Canada is used throughout the entirety of the teaching profession..
If you think teachers don't have strict curriculums they have to follow, you are a little out of the loop.

If you think teachers don't have strict curriculums they have to follow, you are a little out of the loop.

Some do. Some do not. I have seen both cases.

So maybe it is you who are a little out of the loop.

What things are there that have no cause?

Good question. The answer would be that anything that does not have a cause is in the realm of the supernatural, which science cannot address.

The scientist's position is not even capable of assuming things without cause, because if they are things, they have some sort of empirically existence, and if they exist then there can be a way to study them.

Not being able to assume things without cause is not the same as assuming that all things have a cause. Surely you can see the difference?

Science does not assume that all things have a cause. It simply recognizes that anything that does not have a cause is outside its realm of study...

To assume non-empirical existence is a philosophical stance.

Yes, and this is exactly why science cannot assume any such thing.

Of course, to assume that all existence is empirical existence would be an equally impermissable philosophical stance.

We can admit that, anyway, as we identify the supernatural.

And, if we admit it, we admit that we cannot assume that all things have a cause.

Yup. If you are a pacifist, you need to stand for your ideals and refuse to fight, regardless of the situation.
It would be a very selfish thing to do to your fellow countrymen in such a perilous situation. Why is being a pacifist any more worthy of support than being a religious fundamentalist?

I don't think anyone should have the right to refuse fighting in a strictly defensive war.
I agree completely. If someone refuses to fight in a defensive war like that they should never be allowed to live in that country again.

Good question. The answer would be that anything that does not have a cause is in the realm of the supernatural, which science cannot address.

The scientist's position is not even capable of assuming things without cause, because if they are things, they have some sort of empirically existence, and if they exist then there can be a way to study them.
Not being able to assume things without cause is not the same as assuming that all things have a cause. Surely you can see the difference?
No, I really don't. If the position taken is that there is nothing without a cause, then it also assumes all things must have a cause.

Of course, other positions can be taken, but they are unscientific.

Science does not assume that all things have a cause. It simply recognizes that anything that does not have a cause is outside its realm of study...
...and therefore unscientific (i.e. not science). The philosophies that are of science though encompass things that science can study. It encompasses things empirical, things real, things that have cause.

To assume non-empirical existence is a philosophical stance.
Yes, and this is exactly why science cannot assume any such thing.

Of course, to assume that all existence is empirical existence would be an equally impermissable philosophical stance.
Sorry, I should have said "another philosophical stance," an unscientific one.

You're right, the latter stances are "impermissable"... as scientific. The scientific philosophy is the one that allows for things that are studiable.

Of course, since there is no base assumption in science that all things have a cause, etc., we can admit that some things cannot be studied by science.
We can admit that, anyway, as we identify the supernatural.
And, if we admit it, we admit that we cannot assume that all things have a cause.
If we admit that some things cannot be studied by science, we admit that the philosophies they encompass are unscientific, outside the boundaries of science. But there are scientific philosophies--philosophies embedded in science--such as the one I stated earlier.

Is the profession of teacher limited to Canada? Does only Canada have teachers? No!. Thus, the government of Canada is one possible employer in the profession - one possible entity that sets curriculum. The profession of "teacher" is not limited to your tiny little world! I was speaking specifically of teaching, in Canada. That you missed that, despite my repeated statements to make it clear to you, indicates to me at least that you are willfully ignoring my statements in order to make your point.






I'm currently teaching a class - albeit as a teacher's assitstant, but I am teaching. Care to revise your statement? Not until you actually show some insight into the subject.



Obviously, you have limited experience of teaching. In some classes, a textbook is all a teacher is given as a curriculum. The rest, they devise themselves. Now you are simply being ridiculous. A textbook is a resource. The curriculum is a DOCUMENT THAT TELLS YOU WHAT OUTCOMES MUST BE MET IN A CLASS. Dem, you are behaving like a child, pretending to know what you clearly do not.

I will not go through the rest of your pointless statements. You are the only one who seems to think you are making any sense. I have learned to avoid debating with you exactly because of this. You twist, you change, and you outright ignore the facts in order to make up an argument that you can butt your head against. I understand this is enjoyable for you, but I resent it deeply, and refuse to put any further effort into trying to get you to see reason. You are clearly beyond that stage.

Do you know a teacher personally or are you a teacher? If not, she has more authority on the subject than you do even if she is Canadian.
Ah, Dem claims she is a teacher's aide...which really doesn't give her any authority since the training is quite different. And knowing teachers doesn't mean you have a clue about the profession.

It's funny, because I would never pretend to know more about research than she to make my point.

Some do. Some do not. I have seen both cases. You are in the US? Then you are flat out lying. No elementary or secondary school has classes without a curriculum. Not for credit. And that is true accross North America.

How could she possibly be an authority on teaching in other areas if she has only taught in Canada? And since is it obvious that she seems to think that the way things are done in Canada is used throughout the entirety of the teaching profession..
Because she actually went through years of university learning in her chosen profession?

And teaching in Canada is in the context of the thread, which is about Sinuhue. She started the thread to discuss her concerns about the topic.

If we admit that some things cannot be studied by science, we admit that the philosophies they encompass are unscientific, outside the boundaries of science. But there are scientific philosophies--philosophies embedded in science--such as the one I stated earlier.

The "one you stated earlier" is not a philosophy unto itself. It is a direct result of the scientific method. Because of the process of the scientific method, supernatural things cannot be studied. Thus, they are outside of science.

This does not, of course, mean that they do not exist, which is what your first post suggested.

I was speaking specifically of teaching, in Canada. That you missed that, despite my repeated statements to make it clear to you, indicates to me at least that you are willfully ignoring my statements in order to make your point.

Actually, this whole argument started when you called the teachers and administrators in Kansas who quit "unprofessional." My point is, and has always been, that your statement in that case was incorrect.

Now you are simply being ridiculous. A textbook is a resource. The curriculum is a DOCUMENT THAT TELLS YOU WHAT OUTCOMES MUST BE MET IN A CLASS.

And I have taken classes (and I'm dealing with one right now), in which the only "outcomes that must be met" given to a teacher were, "Teach what is in this book." Thus, in that case, the only curriculum given is the book.

Dem, you are behaving like a child, pretending to know what you clearly do not.

On the contrary, I am simply stating what I know to be true.

You, on the other hand, seem to think that your particular instance of a teaching job encompasses all there is to the entire profession.

You twist, you change, and you outright ignore the facts in order to make up an argument that you can butt your head against.

My entire argument has been against your statement that the teachers in Kansas that quit were "unprofessional." You have yet to back this up. In fact, since your entire argument was that they were unprofessional for refusing to teach the given curriculum, you have actually reversed that argument by admitting that a curriculum could be provided that would, in and of itself, be unprofessional to follow.

I understand this is enjoyable for you, but I resent it deeply, and refuse to put any further effort into trying to get you to see reason. You are clearly beyond that stage.

Actually, it isn't enjoyable at all. I was surprised to see you throwing such baseless accusations, and even more surprised to see you claiming that the "professionalism" of any given teacher was determined by the curriculum, rather than by the profession of teacher. And the really difficult thing, which I would not have expected of you, was for you to later claim that you know nothing about the case in Kansas and do not care. In other words, you will call these people unprofessional, but know nothing at all about them.

It's funny, because I would never pretend to know more about research than she to make my point.

I am not pretending to know more than I do, or even more than you. I think you know that the profession of teacher encompasses more than you are letting on, and I think you know that all teachers are not handed a set curriculum on which to base their teaching. I have seen these things personally. I have spoken to people who have had them happen.

You are in the US? Then you are flat out lying. No elementary or secondary school has classes without a curriculum. Not for credit. And that is true accross North America.

(a) Is teaching limited to elementary and secondary school? I was under the impression that the profession of teacher included all people that get paid as teachers.

(b) Is a curriculum always handed to the teacher, or is she sometimes expected to devise it herself?

Because she actually went through years of university learning in her chosen profession?

....which still doesn't mean that her personal experience of that profession encompasses the entire profession.

And teaching in Canada is in the context of the thread, which is about Sinuhue. She started the thread to discuss her concerns about the topic.

My argument with her started when she called teachers in KANSAS (which, last time I checked, is not in Canada) unprofessional. If she would like to recant that statement, then I have no argument with her.

The "one you stated earlier" is not a philosophy unto itself. It is a direct result of the scientific method. Because of the process of the scientific method, supernatural things cannot be studied. Thus, they are outside of science.
It is a philosophy, both in the sense of an outlook, a certain way of seeing things, and in the sense of an underlying reality for (in this case) the scientific method. Because the process of the scientific method limits itself to the empirical, supernatural things cannot be studied. And things empirical are those that have causes.

This does not, of course, mean that they do not exist, which is what your first post suggested.
Scientifically, they don't exist, right. To consider them in existence is not the scientific way to see things, it is of another philosophy.

....which still doesn't mean that her personal experience of that profession encompasses the entire profession.
Most of what encompasses this profession is rather standardized, kind of like the way I would expect a scientist from Sweden to utilize the same scientific procedures that you would use. While the details of the job may vary, the details of being a scientist wouldn't.

My argument with her started when she called teachers in KANSAS (which, last time I checked, is not in Canada) unprofessional. If she would like to recant that statement, then I have no argument with her.
That was her opinion. She's entitled to it.

And I have taken classes (and I'm dealing with one right now), in which the only "outcomes that must be met" given to a teacher were, "Teach what is in this book." Thus, in that case, the only curriculum given is the book.
But the discussion in the thread was about secondary schooling, which is for credit. Although you were taking it out of context, as a generalized comment, it was made in context.

I'm going to pull a bit of a Jocabia here, to point out exactly what this dispute has been - at least the only thing I have disputed.

So, it started like this:


So even if it was that an evolution being taught side by side, i'd understand if a science teacher said hell no!

(referring to teaching both evolutionary theory and ID side by side as science in a science class)

Generally this problem is solved by a mandated curriculum. If ID and evolution are both in the curriculum, the teacher can not legally refuse.

True. But, like several teachers and adminstators in Kansas, if her view that only science should be taught as science is strong enough, she will gladly quit her job (or refuse to teach it and get fired).

Good. One less unprofessional teacher around.

In other words, Sin clearly stated that a teacher (specifically the ones in Kansas) who were willing to quit their jobs rather than teach an inaccurate curriculum - ie. rather than teach ID as if it were a scientific theory (something she later stated she said nothing about) are unproffessional.

She then goes on to compare any such teacher to a Nazi sympahtizer:

I'm reminded of Keegstra in Eckville...who taught that the Holocaust was all propoganda and lies. They finally got him out because he was not teaching the curriculum.

When asked if, to be considered professional, a teacher must simply teach whatever is handed to them in a curriculum, she responded:

Yes. The curriculum is a legal document. If it spreads lies, and hate, legally...you quit, or you teach it.

Of course, she then later said:

Now, if a curriculum were introduced that violated our professional code, let's say the new curriculum involved teaching that arabs were dirty terrorists, the profession AS A WHOLE would protest.


In between there have been little side arguments over all sorts of things. I think that the first duty of a teacher is to his students (the professional code she linked to, IIRC, even lists the duties to a pupil first). She apparently thinks it is to whomever hands them a curriculum to teach. But the main argument here has always been over what constitutes professionalism.

Scientifically, they don't exist, right. To consider them in existence is not the scientific way to see things, it is of another philosophy.

Once again, you are equating, "Do not assume they do exist," with "Assume they do not exist." Science makes no claims that the supernatural does not exist. If they exist, they exist, and science recognizes this fact. Science simply cannot study any such things.

Existence is not determined by the observer (or lack thereof). It is determined by whether or not something exists.

Most of what encompasses this profession is rather standardized, kind of like the way I would expect a scientist from Sweden to utilize the same scientific procedures that you would use. While the details of the job may vary, the details of being a scientist wouldn't.

Hardly. Even in my limited training, I have been exposed to various philosophies of teaching, various methods, various setups, various class types, etc. In science, the method is determined. It is the scientific method and thus we can all discuss from that basis. In teaching, the methods and approaches vary widely from place to place, from school to school, over the various levels of schooling, and even from classroom to classroom within the same school. Half of what they tell you is that you have to adapt to what your students need, whatever that may be, and that it will always be different...

That was her opinion. She's entitled to it.

And I am entitled to mine. And since we are discussing that, we both must back up our opinions, no?

But the discussion in the thread was about secondary schooling, which is for credit.

Really? Even in the first post, it wasn't limited to secondary schooling. It was discussing teachers, as a whole profession.

Sinuhue has constantly added restrictors onto her statemtents after the fact as if that somehow refutes my statements, which have all included the entirety of the profession.

Although you were taking it out of context, as a generalized comment, it was made in context.

You cannot say, "This is unprofessional," without including the entire profession. A single job does not determine what is and is not professional within that profession.

In other words, Sin clearly stated that a teacher (specifically the ones in Kansas) who were willing to quit their jobs rather than teach an inaccurate curriculum - ie. rather than teach ID as if it were a scientific theory (something she later stated she said nothing about) are unproffessional.
Well, technically she stated that a teacher (specifically one that has both Creationism and ID in the curriculum) who was willing to quit their job rather than teach the curriculum (which, by the way, is not "incorrect", because it is the curriculum) is unprofessional blah blah. That is her opinion.

She then goes on to compare any such teacher to a Nazi sympahtizer...
No, she went on to make an example of a teacher who was dismissed for not teaching the curriculum.

When asked if, to be considered professional, a teacher must simply teach whatever is handed to them in a curriculum, she responded:
Yes. The curriculum is a legal document. If it spreads lies, and hate, legally...you quit, or you teach it.
Yes. The curriculum is a legal document, in both Canada and the United States. If it's not taught, the teacher could lose their job, so they may as well quit if they are not willing to teach it.

Of course, she then later said:
Now, if a curriculum were introduced that violated our professional code, let's say the new curriculum involved teaching that arabs were dirty terrorists, the profession AS A WHOLE would protest.

In between there have been little side arguments over all sorts of things. I think that the first duty of a teacher is to his students (the professional code she linked to, IIRC, even lists the duties to a pupil first). She apparently thinks it is to whomever hands them a curriculum to teach. But the main argument here has always been over what constitutes professionalism.
She made a distinction that the cirriculum (legal document) that violates the professional code (by teaching generally accepted untruths) creates an ethical crisis that would cause a back-lash. I agree that it would. "First duty" aside, the job of the teacher is to execute the cirriculum, and that should not be done until the ethical crisis is resolved. (ethics = should/shouldn't)

If I may say so, I agree with you that it would be unprofessional as well as unethical to teach generally accepted untruths in class, and I think Sinuhue acknowledges this, dispite her hard-line "quitting" comments, in recognizing the aforementioned crisis that must be resolved.

And I am entitled to mine. And since we are discussing that, we both must back up our opinions, no?
That's between the two of you.

Well, technically she stated that a teacher (specifically one that has both Creationism and ID in the curriculum) who was willing to quit their job rather than teach the curriculum (which, by the way, is not "incorrect", because it is the curriculum) is unprofessional blah blah. That is her opinion.

Yes, it is. And I have asked her to support it. It is possible to support an opinion, you know.

And something placed in the curriculum can certainly be incorrect. I could devise a curriculum that required someone to teach that women all have penises, but it would be incorrect. Of course, I didn't say incorrect, I said "inaccurate".

Yes. The curriculum is a legal document, in both Canada and the United States. If it's not taught, the teacher could lose their job, so they may as well quit if they are not willing to teach it.

This is something I have never disputed. I have simply stated that doing so - either losing their job or quitting it - can be the most professional thing to do in that situation.

She made a distinction that the cirriculum (legal document) that violates the professional code (by teaching generally accepted untruths) creates an ethical crisis that would cause a back-lash. I agree that it would. "First duty" aside, the job of the teacher is to execute the cirriculum, and that should not be done until the ethical crisis is resolved. (ethics = should/shouldn't)

And yet, just above, she specifically stated that you teach the curriculum no matter what is in it, even if it is full of lies, hatred, and bigotry.

If I may say so, I agree with you that it would be unprofessional as well as unethical to teach generally accepted untruths in class, and I think Sinuhue acknowledges this, dispite her hard-line "quitting" comments, in recognizing the aforementioned crisis that must be resolved.

At first, she stated the exact opposite. She has now changed her view (or realized that her first statement was a misrepresentation of her view). I'm just waiting for her to acknowledge that.

That's between the two of you.

In truth, a discussion on an online forum is between anyone who is participating. You have made a point of being a part of the discussion, so it is between you and I and you and Sin as well.

Once again, you are equating, "Do not assume they do exist," with "Assume they do not exist." Science makes no claims that the supernatural does not exist. If they exist, they exist, and science recognizes this fact. Science simply cannot study any such things.

Existence is not determined by the observer (or lack thereof). It is determined by whether or not something exists.
Science is the studying, though, utilizing the scientific method. Hence if science cannot study it, it effectively does not exist for science. You are correct that if it cannot be assumed, then neither a positive nor negative assumption can be made about it. All I am saying is that if it cannot be assumed, it effectively does not exist since it will not be assumed.

Existence is not determined by the observer, correct; no one implied it was. "Scientific", though, is an adjective/adverb that ascribes the property of "being of science" to a thing, and I clearly said, "Scientifically, they don't exist." Perhaps I should have said, "as far as science is concerned they effectively do not exist." My apologies for inaccurate wording.

Hardly. Even in my limited training, I have been exposed to various philosophies of teaching, various methods, various setups, various class types, etc. In science, the method is determined. It is the scientific method and thus we can all discuss from that basis. In teaching, the methods and approaches vary widely from place to place, from school to school, over the various levels of schooling, and even from classroom to classroom within the same school. Half of what they tell you is that you have to adapt to what your students need, whatever that may be, and that it will always be different...
The methods of the teacher to present the information may vary (that reflects their philosophies), the setups may vary, the class types may vary, but what should not vary is the theory of teaching: creating lesson plans to present the cirriculum; providing background information to lead up to discussion of a topic and not just jumping in with both feet; focusing class attention through certain paths or trains of thought to lead to specific conclusions that support the cirriculum; using exercises to reinforce the information. Etc. This is teaching.

Science is the studying, though, utilizing the scientific method. Hence if science cannot study it, it effectively does not exist for science. You are correct that if it cannot be assumed, then neither a positive nor negative assumption can be made about it.

In that case, "All things have a cause," cannot be considered a "philosophy of science." "All things natural have a cause," might be, but then again, that is pretty much a part of the definition of natural...

The methods of the teacher to present the information may vary (that reflects their philosophies), the setups may vary, the class types may vary, but what should not vary is the theory of teaching: creating lesson plans to present the cirriculum;

Some teachers don't find this necessary. In fact, some seem to feel that a lesson plan will stunt their ability to teach, and that it is better to go in simply willing to discuss the material - more of the Socratic approach.

providing background information to lead up to discussion of a topic and not just jumping in with both feet;

Some teaching methods do the exact opposite, jumping in and then learning the background as they go.

focusing class attention through certain paths or trains of thought to lead to specific conclusions that support the cirriculum;

This, at least, is pretty much universal to teaching.

using exercises to reinforce the information.

In a general sense, yes, although the teacher may not use them but may simply suggest them to the students. And the types of "exercises" vary widely.

It would be a very selfish thing to do to your fellow countrymen in such a perilous situation. Why is being a pacifist any more worthy of support than being a religious fundamentalist?


I agree completely. If someone refuses to fight in a defensive war like that they should never be allowed to live in that country again.
If a person is not willing to defend a society he or she should no longer recive the same benifits from that society that thoes that are willing to recive

(but in my own opinion mandating service should only be for a defensive war not offensive )

And something placed in the curriculum can certainly be incorrect. I could devise a curriculum that required someone to teach that women all have penises, but it would be incorrect. Of course, I didn't say incorrect, I said "inaccurate".
But that doesn't make for an inaccurate cirriculum; it makes for a cirriculum that teaches inaccuracies.

This is something I have never disputed. I have simply stated that doing so - either losing their job or quitting it - can be the most professional thing to do in that situation.
Good. That is your opinion.

And yet, just above, she specifically stated that you teach the curriculum no matter what is in it, even if it is full of lies, hatred, and bigotry.
Legally, the teacher is bound to do that. Of course, it's a hypothetical situation; the government would never devise such a curriculum that goes against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

At first, she stated the exact opposite. She has now changed her view (or realized that her first statement was a misrepresentation of her view). I'm just waiting for her to acknowledge that.
I don't see it that way. The first question was a hypothetical about the teacher's obligation when faced with an (unrealistic) ethical dilemma, and the second a response to the realistic situation: "Now, if a curriculum were introduced that violated our professional code..."

In truth, a discussion on an online forum is between anyone who is participating. You have made a point of being a part of the discussion, so it is between you and I and you and Sin as well.
Well, then, I elect that opinions do not have to be backed up. They are, after all, based on personal experiences and learning, and carry all the weight of subjectivity behind them. They shall be accepted as one person's opinion, with no one else obligated to adopt a similar, or even opposing, position.

But that doesn't make for an inaccurate cirriculum; it makes for a cirriculum that teaches inaccuracies.

Semantics. If it teaches inaccuracies, it is, itself, inaccurate.

Legally, the teacher is bound to do that.

Yes. But we weren't talking about legalities, we were talking about professionalism. If the government told me I had to falsify data, I would be legally bound to do it, but I wouldn't. Why? It would be unprofessional within my profession!

Of course, it's a hypothetical situation; the government would never devise such a curriculum that goes against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Any curriculum that includes Intelligent Design as a scientific theory is a curriculum that requires teachers to lie.

I don't see it that way. The first question was a hypothetical about the teacher's obligation when faced with an (unrealistic) ethical dilemma, and the second a response to the realistic situation: "Now, if a curriculum were introduced that violated our professional code..."

The two situations are exactly the same! In the first case, she said that lies, bigotry, hatred, etc. (if they are in the curriculum) have to be taught in order to be professional. In the second, she specifically stated that a curriculum which included bigotry and hatred were introduced, teachers would complain because it violated their professional code....

We aren't talking about disparate situations here. In both quotes, we were referring to a curriculum that included lies and bigotry.

Well, then, I elect that opinions do not have to be backed up.

You wouldn't do well in a humanities course of any type, then. The teacher would ask for an essay on your opinion and you would give them your opinion with nothing to back it up. Let's see, such an essay would get, hmmmmmm, an F?

They are, after all, based on personal experiences and learning, and carry all the weight of subjectivity behind them.

Personal experiences and learning are things that can be used to back up an opinion.

They shall be accepted as one person's opinion, with no one else obligated to adopt a similar, or even opposing, position.

I didn't say Sin was obligated to anything, nor am I. However, since we are debating a matter of opinion, both sides need to backed up. After all, a debate that starts and ends with, "This is my opinion and I don't have to back it up," is fairly useless....

Semantics. If it teaches inaccuracies, it is, itself, inaccurate.
The cirriculum is not "what is taught", not the content; it is a document that outlines goals to be taught. The cirriculum that contains generally accepted untruthful goals is no more or less a cirriculum than one that contains generally accepted truthful goals.

Yes. But we weren't talking about legalities, we were talking about professionalism. If the government told me I had to falsify data, I would be legally bound to do it, but I wouldn't. Why? It would be unprofessional within my profession!
We were talking about a legal document, the cirriculum, and that introduces legality. You could do whatever you do for unprofessionalism reasons or for illegality reasons, but someone else could do it for other reasons and consider themselves professional. Because the definitions of what is "professional" differ for one person from another, the assessment automatically becomes an opinion.

Any curriculum that includes Intelligent Design as a scientific theory is a curriculum that requires teachers to lie.
I don't disagree.

The two situations are exactly the same! In the first case, she said that lies, bigotry, hatred, etc. (if they are in the curriculum) have to be taught in order to be professional. In the second, she specifically stated that a curriculum which included bigotry and hatred were introduced, teachers would complain because it violated their professional code....
No, in the first case she said if the teacher teaches the cirriculum, they are professional, and if they choose not to teach the cirriculum, they are not professional. To her, "professionalism" is not the assessment of integrity to personal beliefs that you hold it to be, but integrity to the job.

In the second case she said if the cirriculum includes things that violate the teacher's Code, the teachers would move to enact changes in the cirriculum.
(Edited.)

There is nothing inherently contradictory in the statements, in my opinion.

We aren't talking about disparate situations here. In both quotes, we were referring to a curriculum that included lies and bigotry.
Eh, maybe I'm reading too much into it. But the first situation, being hypothetical, was limited to the parameters of the hypothesis. The second was extrapolated with "Now, if a curriculum were introduced that violated our professional code..."

You wouldn't do well in a humanities course of any type, then. The teacher would ask for an essay on your opinion and you would give them your opinion with nothing to back it up. Let's see, such an essay would get, hmmmmmm, an F?
Don't know, as I'm not sure what "Humanities" is. Would depend on the topic of the essay, I guess. Some things are just none of anyone's business.

Personal experiences and learning are things that can be used to back up an opinion.

I didn't say Sin was obligated to anything, nor am I. However, since we are debating a matter of opinion, both sides need to backed up. After all, a debate that starts and ends with, "This is my opinion and I don't have to back it up," is fairly useless....
If you insist that both sides "need" to be backed up, then you create an obligation.

If you want to debate opinion, then yes, but as I said that's between you and her.

By the way, she did back up her opinion by defining what professionalism is to her.

The cirriculum is not "what is taught", not the content; it is a document that outlines goals to be taught.

It doesn't take a leap of logic to realize that the goals are the content to be covered.

We were talking about a legal document, the cirriculum, and that introduces legality. You could do whatever you do for unprofessionalism reasons or for illegality reasons, but someone else could do it for other reasons and consider themselves professional. Because the definitions of what is "professional" differ for one person from another, the assessment automatically becomes an opinion.

And so I asked what Sin's definition of professionalism was. I then demonstrated how her definition didn't match her assessment.

No, in the first case she said if the teacher teaches the cirriculum, they are professional, and if they choose not to teach the cirriculum, they are not professional. To her, "professionalism" is not the assessment of integrity to personal beliefs that you hold it to be, but integrity to the job.

I didn't say anything about personal beliefs. I said that professionalism is attached to a profession, not a particular job. If all you care about is doing whatever your one particular job says, that is not professionalism, as it shows no regard for the profession as a whole, it is, perhaps, a form of work ethic.

In the second case she said if the cirriculum includes things that violate the teacher's Code, the teachers would move to enact changes in the cirriculum.
(Edited.)

Actually, she said they would strike - aka. refuse to teach the curriculum.

There is nothing inherently contradictory in the statements, in my opinion.

Ok, so if it is unprofessional to refuse to teach a curriculum, and professional to refuse to teach a curriculum (by striking), there is no contradiction?

Eh, maybe I'm reading too much into it. But the first situation, being hypothetical, was limited to the parameters of the hypothesis. The second was extrapolated with "Now, if a curriculum were introduced that violated our professional code..."

And both discussions specifically mentioned bigotry and lies being inserted into the curriculum.

Don't know, as I'm not sure what "Humanities" is. Would depend on the topic of the essay, I guess. Some things are just none of anyone's business.

The humanities include the arts, theology, philosophy, history, government, etc.

Basically, they are fields of study reliant upon opinion.

If you insist that both sides "need" to be backed up, then you create an obligation.

If she wishes to stop debating with me, there is no obligation. I don't place an obligation on someone to debate. If they want to say, "This is my opinion and that is it," that is fine. That is how the conversation ends.

By the way, she did back up her opinion by defining what professionalism is to her.

And I demonstrated (a) That she was making contradictory statements and (b) that her definition of professionalism, as defined apparently by the website she linked me to, was inconsistent with her statement that a person who quits over a curriculum requiring her to teach inaccurate information is unprofessional.

Another tour:

An actual comparison to the teaching of ID in the science classroom would be if a school changed the curriculum so that a history teacher had to teach that the Holocaust never happened and that it was actually the Jews killing Germans. Would you consider it "unprofessional" of a teacher to then refuse to teach that curriculum?

Yes. The curriculum is a legal document. If it spreads lies, and hate, legally...you quit, or you teach it.

Then:

I really can't believe that you think lying to your students is a "professional" way to be a teacher. Would you really consider yourself "unprofessional" if, for instance, you were handed curriculum telling you to teach that Native Americans were a separate, and inferior species or you were handed a curriculum telling you to teach that women were inferior to men and you quit instead?


Yes I would. Professionalism is following the guidelines of your profession. For teachers, we have a professional code of conduct, but we also have a legal responsibility to teach the curriculum, whether we agree with it or not.

Later:

Blah blah blah. All very nice Dem. Nonetheless, as usually you are wrong. All of these things could be argued, yes, if a curricular change was made that the Association did not support.

Interestingly enough, in the case I originally brought up (ie. Kansas, the teachers Sinuhue says are unprofessional), the teacher's association does not support the curriculum changes.

I'm fairly certain that the Association would not support the teaching of something like, as I quoted above: "Native Americans were a separate, and inferior species or you were handed a curriculum telling you to teach that women were inferior" and yet, *gasp* refusing to teach these things,
according to Sin, would be unprofessional!

Of course, later:

A professional does his or her job whether they like that job or not. They fit their job description.

I linked to a specific professional code for you to peruse. Now, if a curriculum were introduced that violated our professional code, let's say the new curriculum involved teaching that arabs were dirty terrorists, the profession AS A WHOLE would protest. We would be called upon to strike.

Wait! Doesn't "strike" mean "refuse to do your job until changes are made"? Or, in a worst case scenario, "refuse to return to your job (aka. quit) because the changes are not made"? The first quote doesn't exactly leave room for striking.

Meanwhile, why is it unprofesional to refuse to teach that Native Americans are inferior or women are inferior, but professional to refuse to teach that "arabs are dirty terrorists"?

It doesn't take a leap of logic to realize that the goals are the content to be covered.
If the goal to be taught is lies, bigotry and hatred, then that is the goal to be taught. The accuracy of the content in terms of truth is irrelevant to whether or not it is a goal, and calling it an "inaccurate goal" simply because it contains lies, bigotry and hatred would be incorrect use of the language. Similarly for the statement of goals that is the cirriculum.

And so I asked what Sin's definition of professionalism was. I then demonstrated how her definition didn't match her assessment.
I liked the way she stated her definition better. It was more accurate.

I didn't say anything about personal beliefs. I said that professionalism is attached to a profession, not a particular job. If all you care about is doing whatever your one particular job says, that is not professionalism, as it shows no regard for the profession as a whole, it is, perhaps, a form of work ethic.
Sinuhue stated that the job of the teacher is to teach the cirriculum; that is where her definition of "professionalism" branches from. Professionalism, for her, is attached to the profession. You stated that the job of the teacher is to teach the truth. "The truth" stretches beyond the boundaries of the cirriculum, because it often overlaps with personal opinions of what the truth is.

Actually, she said they would strike - aka. refuse to teach the curriculum.
That could be effective to enact change in the legislation. Of course, they could be legislated back to work, but it is more likely that their complaints would be addressed at the negotiation table if it violates their Code so.

Ok, so if it is unprofessional to refuse to teach a curriculum, and professional to refuse to teach a curriculum (by striking), there is no contradiction?
In this scenario, the teacher refusing to teach the cirriculum by leaving his job (or staying on and risking getting fired) is unprofessional because the individual goes against the Code that says the cirriculum should be taught. Refusing to teach in order to enact change in the cirriculum that violates the Code is not unprofessional, not the same thing.

In one case it is a teacher violating the Code, in the second it is the cirriculum violating the Code. In the hypothetical situation where the teacher's cirriculum is to teach lies, bigotry and hatred, the teacher would violate the Code by not teaching the cirriculum; but, realistically, the teachers could, and would, rally to change the cirriculum.

The humanities include the arts, theology, philosophy, history, government, etc.

Basically, they are fields of study reliant upon opinion.


If she wishes to stop debating with me, there is no obligation. I don't place an obligation on someone to debate. If they want to say, "This is my opinion and that is it," that is fine. That is how the conversation ends.


And I demonstrated (a) That she was making contradictory statements and (b) that her definition of professionalism, as defined apparently by the website she linked me to, was inconsistent with her statement that a person who quits over a curriculum requiring her to teach inaccurate information is unprofessional.

Interestingly enough, in the case I originally brought up (ie. Kansas, the teachers Sinuhue says are unprofessional), the teacher's association does not support the curriculum changes.
That's interesting to know. I hope they have some avenue for action.

I'm fairly certain that the Association would not support the teaching of something like, as I quoted above: "Native Americans were a separate, and inferior species or you were handed a curriculum telling you to teach that women were inferior" and yet, *gasp* refusing to teach these things, according to Sin, would be unprofessional!
Yes, according to her refusing to teach the cirriculum would be unprofessional. That doesn't mean they're wrong or right; that doesn't mean kudos to those who do teach it; it just means those who leave their job because of it are unprofessional.

Meanwhile, why is it unprofesional to refuse to teach that Native Americans are inferior or women are inferior, but professional to refuse to teach that "arabs are dirty terrorists"?
Because one teaches, and the other refuses to teach.

That's interesting to know. I hope they have some avenue for action.

Possibly. In the states, a lot of places make it illegal for teachers in public schools to strike, so their options are: teach something that breaks their professional code, or quit. No curriculum has to be approved by any teacher's organization - it is completely set by the school board. Even higher school boards don't have any real control over the local ones - they can simply refuse to provide funding for a school that doesn't meet the rules.

Yes, according to her refusing to teach the cirriculum would be unprofessional.

Incorrect. She explicitly stated that a curriculum could break the code, and thus it would be unprofessional to teach that curriculum. Thus, she said, the teachers would strike. Of course, that isn't an option for all teachers....

That doesn't mean they're wrong or right; that doesn't mean kudos to those who do teach it; it just means those who leave their job because of it are unprofessional.

....which doesn't make any sense. The term "professional" does not apply to one particular job. It applies to an entire profession. By Sinuhue's own code, which she posted, teaching a curriculum full of lies would break at least 5 or 6 rules of the code.

Because one teaches, and the other refuses to teach.

Um, you missed something here. Both cases are teachers refusing to teach.

Um, you missed something here. Both cases are teachers refusing to teach.
You are right, I missed something: I missed repeating my explanation one more time. So here goes...
Would you really consider yourself "unprofessional" if, for instance, you were handed curriculum telling you to teach that Native Americans were a separate, and inferior species or you were handed a curriculum telling you to teach that women were inferior to men and you quit instead?

Yes I would. Professionalism is following the guidelines of your profession. For teachers, we have a professional code of conduct, but we also have a legal responsibility to teach the curriculum, whether we agree with it or not.
Now, if a curriculum were introduced that violated our professional code, let's say the new curriculum involved teaching that arabs were dirty terrorists, the profession AS A WHOLE would protest. We would be called upon to strike.
In the first quote you are asking her about professionalism regarding the teacher who quits, refuses to teach the approved cirriculum, and within the confines of that premise she replied on the issue of professionalism. In the second quote, she suggests that if the approved cirriculum violates the Professional Code, teachers would strike to have it changed. The premise has changed. There is no conflict between these statements.

In the first quote, a teacher has quit, refusing to teach the approved cirriculum; the suggestion that the cirriculum violates the Professional Code is not a part of that scenario. In fact, it does violate it, but that's beside the point; it is not a part of the premise of the question she is responding to. The question is, "Is this action of quitting unprofessional?" She is responding to the issue of whether or not the action itself, alone, apart from all other considerations, is a professional one.

In the second scenario, she suggests all teachers would band together to refuse to teach the approved cirriculum that violates the Professional Code. The implicit question here is a different one: it is, "What would happen if a cirriculum were introduced that violates our Professional Code?" Different question, different context, different response.

Does that make it clearer?

Incorrect. She explicitly stated that a curriculum could break the code, and thus it would be unprofessional to teach that curriculum. Thus, she said, the teachers would strike. Of course, that isn't an option for all teachers....
I love how I continue to speak, long after I actually stopped posting...I'll make one point here, and then address this whole issue:

In the hypothetical situation you outlined...where a curriculum would violate our professional code, I first stated that this would be pretty close to impossible, before pretending (for your sake) that it happened, and then discussing the reaction of the Association.

If all teachers under the jurisdiction of a particular curriculum (the hypothetical one that violates the professional code...in the case of Canada, this would be province wide, regardless of school or district), were called upon to strike, they would have no choice to strike or not. They would be forced to by the Association. In that case, they are not making the choice to not teach the curriculum, the choice has been taken from them. Therefore, they are behaving in a professional manner, as their profession requires them to take this action.

So no, my definition of professionalism: Doing what the job requires you must...the job, not personal definitions of ethics... is not being contradicted.

Now, onto this whole mess. Dem, you have absolutely no right to misrepresent my statements. You claim that you are simply ferreting out inconsistencies, but I am not here to prove to you that my opinion is right or wrong based on how you choose to interpret what I say. Because YOU think that something is inconsistent in what I have said, means only that you lack understanding. Rather than seek clarification, or listen to my clarification, you seize upon a statement in order to prove your own point. This is not a debating club. You are not here to 'score points'. I am perfectly capable of telling you what I think, and have done so, repeatedly. You can, of course, make your own interpretations of what I have said, but when I tell you, also repeatedly, that your interpretations of WHAT I HAVE SAID ARE FALSE...believe that I am the expert in this case...the expert in terms of what my beliefs are, and what I meant. Not you. You can choose to believe what you will about what I meant. You have the freedom to be wrong.

This whole argument stems from the fact that you refuse to accept that I mean what I say. I gave you my personal definition of professionalism, and you chose to argue it...but rather than simply argue it saying, "Well, I don't agree...here is my opinion", in which case we would simply have to agree to disagree...rather than doing that you chose to find 'evidence' in my own statements to 'prove' I am wrong. You are trying to use my statements to prove that my opinion is wrong? Can you see how ridiculous that is? Your misunderstanding of what I mean is YOUR problem, not mine. I've attempted to show you how my definition is not contradicted by my professional code, but you have interpreted things the way you wished to. It doesn't make you right.

So you can quote everything I've ever said...mash it all together, create any sort of argument you want out of it, but it doesn't change the fact that no matter how hard you try, I am the final say on my beliefs, and my opinions, not you.

(a) Is teaching limited to elementary and secondary school? I was under the impression that the profession of teacher included all people that get paid as teachers.

(b) Is a curriculum always handed to the teacher, or is she sometimes expected to devise it herself?
a) Again, I made it clear that I was speaking ONLY of elementary/secondary education. And all my statements have been confined within those parameters. As for the definition of 'teacher', no, I will not accept suddenly the inclusion of anyone who 'gets paid as a teacher', because then you'll be including tutors, teacher's aides and so on...no. A teacher is someone who is certified, via a professional degree in Education, and via whatever ministry of Education that exists to teach, and again, I'm speaking of elementary and secondary education only in this particular case. (By the way, that includes adult education if the curriculum is elementary or secondary).

b) Yes, a curriculum is always handed to a teacher. I think there is just a confusion on your part about this, and I apologise for getting so pissed about your statements about curriculum. I understand the confusion, so let me explain a bit better what a curriculum is:

A curriculum is a legal document, created by a ministry of Education (in collaboration or not with teachers and community members). It outlines the goals that must be met in a particular course. These goals are stated in terms of the knowledge that must be acquired (I'll explain this in more detail in a sec), the skills that must be achieved, the attitudes that should be fostered, and the ways in which students should demonstrate their knowledge, skills and attitudes.

Knowledge: this is the content part of the course...just a section of a larger whole. In most curriculum, the content is not stated. Instead, general learning outcomes are given, and it is up to the instructor to provide the content that teachers that learning outcome. For example, the major learning outcome could be: students will understand that acids and bases have an effect on aqueous systems. A subset of that learning outcome might be: students will be able to define acids and bases, ionization and neutralization, empirically and theoretically, based on Arrhenius' concepts. (Chem curriculum ( http://ednet.edc.gov.ab.ca/k_12/curriculum/bySubject/science/chm2030.pdf))

You can not just repeat these learning outcomes to a student and have them learn it. The content must demonstrate these concepts, and activities (part of the skills section) will likely make these concepts more concrete.

The curriculum is a very specific document, but it is not a course. Textbook publishers look at the curriculum, and design activities and content that meet it. So when you've seen teachers handed a book and told 'teach this', it's not that a curriculum does not exist. It is rather that this resource has been chosen by that school board as a resource that meets the curriculum. However, it can only conceivably meet a part of the curriculum...usually knowledge, sometimes skills, and sometimes attitudes, but the rest is in the way that the course is taught, and in the way students interact with each other, the teacher, and the concepts.

When a course is new, or updated, quite often there is no 'ready made' resource to use, and then teachers have to create resources. Most teachers do this even when there IS a resource, because they have more success with their own activities. In any case, teachers have a legal responsibility to teach the entire curriculum, whether they have the resources or not to do so.

Value judgments are not absent from the curriculum...but as much as possible, they are avoided. The curriculum is as objective as is possible...but particular world views and beliefs will always creep in, because humans write the curriculum, humans teach it, and humans learn from it.

Individual schools, generally, can not set their own curriculum. They are neither mandated for it, nor would it be a desirable power to have. We need to be reasonably sure of what is learned in a particular course, in order to allow a student to move on, either in another school or eventually into post-secondary. If every school designed their own curriculum, what is taught in 'Science 10' in one school would not be what was taught in another and so on. A student switching schools would likely have to take that course over again in order to meet that school's curriculum. And post-secondary institutions would be forced to review ALL the curriculum, and decide which schools they would accept course from. Instead, a broader curriculum is created...usually on as wide a basis as possible (here it's provincial, territorial...I suspect in the US it is state-wide, not division wide). As well, while there may be differences in curriculum from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, those differences are no longer vary greatly, as more and more students opt to move across jurisdictions into post-secondary schools. Students from an area with a very different curriculum would be disadvantaged, and perhaps not accepted into a different division. This is why it can be difficult for people from other countries to transfer their credits...we first have to make sure that the science, or math or whatever taught in THEIR country matches what we teacher.

My argument with her started when she called teachers in KANSAS (which, last time I checked, is not in Canada) unprofessional. If she would like to recant that statement, then I have no argument with her.
Nope. I won't recant. If you refuse to do your job, you are not fulfilling the obligations of that job, and according to my definition of professionalism, are behaving unprofessionally. Quitting is a way to remove yourself from a situation where your ethics would force you to be unprofessional. I think it's the better choice than not doing your job.

Ok all this being said can we please get back on origional topic

While I find this little personal spat intresting I found the origional topic of more intrest to me and wish to hear more about peoples take on moral rejection of services

Nope. I won't recant. If you refuse to do your job, you are not fulfilling the obligations of that job, and according to my definition of professionalism, are behaving unprofessionally. Quitting is a way to remove yourself from a situation where your ethics would force you to be unprofessional. I think it's the better choice than not doing your job.
Who is to say if being non-professional is always a bad thing

In other words, Sin clearly stated that a teacher (specifically the ones in Kansas) who were willing to quit their jobs rather than teach an inaccurate curriculum - ie. rather than teach ID as if it were a scientific theory (something she later stated she said nothing about) are unproffessional.
Aha! So this is how things got so boggled? You misunderstood from the beginning.

I was assuming (correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe I am) that these teachers in Kansas refused to teach the curriculum, right? One group stayed working, not fulfilling their duties. I call them unprofessional, and they were fired for not doing their job. The other group quit, rather than teach the curriculum. They removed themselves because they could not, in clear conscience, do their jobs. If they remained, they would be unprofessional, because of that. Quitting does not make them unprofessional...joblessness is not a profession. They are unprofessional if they stay, and do not teach what they are legally required to teach.


She then goes on to compare any such teacher to a Nazi sympahtizer: Nope. I did not compare them to Keegstra, I compared the situations, in order to outline how a teacher is legally bound to the curriculum. Keegstra was fired not for teaching his sick version of the Holocaust...had he taught HIS version and the version in the curriculum, he likely could not have been fired legally. However, because he ignored the curriculum, he broke his legal obligations, his contract, and was dismissed. Just like the teachers in Kansas were dismissed for not fulfilling their contractual obligations. I'm sorry you misunderstood my Keegstra reference, though I did attempt to clear that up earlier, I guess your first impression stuck.



Hardly. Even in my limited training, I have been exposed to various philosophies of teaching, various methods, various setups, various class types, etc. In science, the method is determined. It is the scientific method and thus we can all discuss from that basis. In teaching, the methods and approaches vary widely from place to place, from school to school, over the various levels of schooling, and even from classroom to classroom within the same school. Half of what they tell you is that you have to adapt to what your students need, whatever that may be, and that it will always be different... What you are adapting is the method of teaching (and that can be determined as you said on a school by school, or classroom, or even individual basis). You can not 'adapt' the curriculum in terms of not teaching it. You can 'adapt' it in order to better meet the needs of your students (using the curriculum from a lower grade if that student is at that level, or a higher one if necessary...that's part of Individual Program Planning...but the curriculum remains the requirement, whichever level you are using).

The US and Canada are fairly standardized in terms of curricular outcomes, and even teaching methods. Most of the pedagogy taught in Canada originated from educators in the US. Our professional codes are very similar. And the contractual obligation is absolutely the same. A teacher must teach what is written in the curriculum. Not doing so, is considered unprofessional, and is grounds for dismissal.

If I may say so, I agree with you that it would be unprofessional as well as unethical to teach generally accepted untruths in class, and I think Sinuhue acknowledges this, dispite her hard-line "quitting" comments, in recognizing the aforementioned crisis that must be resolved.

Well if I wasn't hard-line, I'd be further slammed for being 'inconsistant':D I have said anyway, many times, that I think quitting is preferable to violating your personal code of ethics (including what you believe to be the ethical code of your profession). However, if you are one of the few people disagreeing with the changes to the curriculum, you're likely fighting a losing battle...quitting does two things...it hopefully shocks people into looking at the curriculum (she quit over this? hmm...wonder what's so bad about it?) AND it frees you from your professional obligation (under the professional code) of not slamming the profession for supporting such a document. Meaning as a teacher, you are limited in how much you can openly criticize the curriculum. As a private citizen...who is in the know, having been a teacher, you can open up and start yelling.

Who is to say if being non-professional is always a bad thing
I don't think it is in all cases....but in others it is...it needs to be on a case to case basis.

Original question focused on pharmacists. Now, I'm not sure what they are required to do by their professional code, but I know that in some places they are allowed to make decisions to distribute certain drugs or not, based on moral grounds...and in other places they do not have this legal right.

The doctor earlier on in the thread brought up some great points about the importance of having the ability to refuse to treat some people. It sounds callous in general, but when you look at his examples, it makes perfect sense. I would not support forcing a doctor to treat patients in those situations (and others that may come up), but how do we find balance? What if a doctor is just a homophobe or a racist, and refuses on those grounds? Is that valid?

You can ask...hey, if I were homosexual or not the same 'race' as this doctor, knowing she was a bigot, would I want to be treated by them anyway?

But we also expect people to be professional...to do their job even if sometimes they don't like it. In fact, we RELY on people to do their jobs, even when it is sometimes unpleasant. If everyone could just refuse for whatever reason, huge problems would result. So what is a valid reason, and what is not? I think it's going to vary, profession by profession, and perhaps even case by case.

I don't think it is in all cases....but in others it is...it needs to be on a case to case basis.

Original question focused on pharmacists. Now, I'm not sure what they are required to do by their professional code, but I know that in some places they are allowed to make decisions to distribute certain drugs or not, based on moral grounds...and in other places they do not have this legal right.

The doctor earlier on in the thread brought up some great points about the importance of having the ability to refuse to treat some people. It sounds callous in general, but when you look at his examples, it makes perfect sense. I would not support forcing a doctor to treat patients in those situations (and others that may come up), but how do we find balance? What if a doctor is just a homophobe or a racist, and refuses on those grounds? Is that valid?

You can ask...hey, if I were homosexual or not the same 'race' as this doctor, knowing she was a bigot, would I want to be treated by them anyway?

But we also expect people to be professional...to do their job even if sometimes they don't like it. In fact, we RELY on people to do their jobs, even when it is sometimes unpleasant. If everyone could just refuse for whatever reason, huge problems would result. So what is a valid reason, and what is not? I think it's going to vary, profession by profession, and perhaps even case by case.


I guess it comes down to this

Should private pharmacies have the right to make moral judgements, and or should they have the rights to let their WORKERS make individual moral judgement

I guess thats where it gets sticky with me ... should they have the freedom to make that decision

I guess it comes down to this

Should private pharmacies have the right to make moral judgements, and or should they have the rights to let their WORKERS make individual moral judgement

I guess thats where it gets sticky with me ... should they have the freedom to make that decision
I agree it's a tough one. On one hand, you figure the market will decide if a private pharmacy (or any company) making job decisions based on morality will float or sink. But it can't just be about market forces, it also needs to be about society's needs. Hypothetically speaking, what if all pharmacies became private, and they all agreed that they would not distribute birth control? I know this is a very unlikely scenario, but 'what if'. Are there certain drugs that society, via the government, wants to ensure are made available to the population? Dem (I think it was Dem) made a distinction between a private health care system and a public one...the latter having some sort of requirement to make certain drugs available, and the former not. Should there be requirements made of private pharmacies too? There seem to be...because in some areas legislation does not allow pharmacists to refuse on moral grounds, and in other areas, the legislation has been changed to allow such refusals.

But is it right? In this particular case...I don't feel it is...and yet I would support a pharmacist who refused to distribute certain drugs to someone they suspect of drug-abuse...ARRRGHHH! I don't think it can be resolved...why is it being dealt with in law?

I agree it's a tough one. On one hand, you figure the market will decide if a private pharmacy (or any company) making job decisions based on morality will float or sink. But it can't just be about market forces, it also needs to be about society's needs. Hypothetically speaking, what if all pharmacies became private, and they all agreed that they would not distribute birth control? I know this is a very unlikely scenario, but 'what if'. Are there certain drugs that society, via the government, wants to ensure are made available to the population? Dem (I think it was Dem) made a distinction between a private health care system and a public one...the latter having some sort of requirement to make certain drugs available, and the former not. Should there be requirements made of private pharmacies too? There seem to be...because in some areas legislation does not allow pharmacists to refuse on moral grounds, and in other areas, the legislation has been changed to allow such refusals.

But is it right? In this particular case...I don't feel it is...and yet I would support a pharmacist who refused to distribute certain drugs to someone they suspect of drug-abuse...ARRRGHHH! I don't think it can be resolved...why is it being dealt with in law?

I dont know Idealy market forces would make that determination

I think absolutly that public funds should NOT be going to farmacies that have the ability to refuse on moral grounds

As far as private industry I think they should be allowed to make that decision but should in no way be shealtered from their decisions nor helped in continuing discrimination

Nor should employes have any protection against termination of the pharmacy they work for does NOT alow moral judgement in drug distrabution

Again, I made it clear that I was speaking ONLY of elementary/secondary education.

And that is a separate profession from the rest of all teachers? And youewre actually confining it to public school elementary/secondary education - or at least you seem to.

As for the definition of 'teacher', no, I will not accept suddenly the inclusion of anyone who 'gets paid as a teacher', because then you'll be including tutors, teacher's aides and so on...no.

Not....really. Tutors are not really paid to teach. They are paid to reinforce what has already been taught. I'm not all that familiar with teacher's aids, but their job sounds like, well, aiding the teacher. They are not teachers in their own right. Teacher's assistants, like me, although we pretty much run the class, are not actually paid (or getting credit) to teach. We are students ourselves, learning how to teach, so that we will be able to do so if we choose academia as a career path.

Of course, I would say that college professors fall under the profession of "teacher". Most of them would agree. Yet most of them don't have degrees in teaching, and most end up writing their own curricula (if they decide to teach off of one in the first place).

A teacher is someone who is certified, via a professional degree in Education, and via whatever ministry of Education that exists to teach, and again, I'm speaking of elementary and secondary education only in this particular case. (By the way, that includes adult education if the curriculum is elementary or secondary).

Most teachers in the US don't have teaching degrees - and yes, I am talking about elementary/secondary education here. Most have degrees in whatever subject they teach - a science, mathematics, history, etc. Some states require a public school teacher to have a teaching certificate, which really takes no more time and effort than my brother's certificate in plastering that he got at a job corp in construction. At least in my state, a teacher can begin his job with no teaching certificate or degree whatsoever, although he is required to get a certificate within the first 2 or 3 years. Private school teachers have no such requirement unless placed on them by the school in question.

Early education teachers are more likely to have an actual degree in education, as are special needs teachers, and "gifted" (ie. advanced classes) teachers. These teachers usually get paid more than those who do not have such a degree.

A curriculum is a legal document, created by a ministry of Education (in collaboration or not with teachers and community members). It outlines the goals that must be met in a particular course. These goals are stated in terms of the knowledge that must be acquired (I'll explain this in more detail in a sec), the skills that must be achieved, the attitudes that should be fostered, and the ways in which students should demonstrate their knowledge, skills and attitudes.

The only schools bound by such "legal documents" are public schools in the US. States will determine curricula, and counties can add to them (or not). These curricula apply to public schools, and to private schools that want state accredidation. However, many private schools are started with the express purpose of not teaching the public school curriculum. Parents don't want their kids to learn evolutionary theory, or certain parts of world history, etc., and so schools are started as private schools so that don't teach these things (or teach that they are completely wrong).

Granted, the good private (and good public) schools will teach the curriculum provided by the state and then some - which is why the students coming out of them often have a much better education. But the private schools are not bound by the laws made by school boards here - and I think that is what you are missing by restricting your discussion to your own experiences.

The curriculum is a very specific document, but it is not a course. Textbook publishers look at the curriculum, and design activities and content that meet it. So when you've seen teachers handed a book and told 'teach this', it's not that a curriculum does not exist. It is rather that this resource has been chosen by that school board as a resource that meets the curriculum. However, it can only conceivably meet a part of the curriculum...usually knowledge, sometimes skills, and sometimes attitudes, but the rest is in the way that the course is taught, and in the way students interact with each other, the teacher, and the concepts.

When I referred to teachers being handed a book and told to teach it, I was referring to college professors, whom you apparently don't count as teachers.

Individual schools, generally, can not set their own curriculum. They are neither mandated for it, nor would it be a desirable power to have. We need to be reasonably sure of what is learned in a particular course, in order to allow a student to move on, either in another school or eventually into post-secondary. If every school designed their own curriculum, what is taught in 'Science 10' in one school would not be what was taught in another and so on.

And this is exactly why colleges will often look at a particular school, and the success of its past students, in addition to the grades given. Curricula vary greatly among private schools, and vary quite a bit from state to state and even from county to county within a state. The only "standard" are those suggested by the federal government. I say they are suggested because no state is obligated by law to adopt them. However, if the state does not adopt them, they will be denied federal funds for their schools. Already, since the recent federal changes, two states have basically gone outside of them (and will likely now be denied federal funds).

A student switching schools would likely have to take that course over again in order to meet that school's curriculum.

I haven't seen anyone have to retake a course, but I have seen people have to take courses that they would not have taken elsewhere, or that they had covered part of in a course elsewhere.

When I transfered from private school into public school, I had to take standardized tests to keep from getting dropped back several grades. Luckily, those standardized tests counted for other things too, and they ended up moving me into the "gifted" classes.

The problem here is that you think things work everywhere like they do there. They do not.

I was assuming (correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe I am) that these teachers in Kansas refused to teach the curriculum, right? One group stayed working, not fulfilling their duties.

Incorrect. The teachers that I was referring to quit when the curriculum change was made. They never taught the flawed curriculum, and they didn't stay in their jobs and simply not teach it. They quit basically imediately upon its passing. No teachers were fired - and I never said they were. They quit. I have clarified this several times already, and every time I asked the specific question, "So they are unprofessional for quitting?" you have said yes and that the more professional thing for them to have done would be to stay and teach it anyways..

This is a curriculum change opposed by all applicable teacher's organizations (including the National Society of Science Teachers), as well as the National Academy of Sciences. However, unlike your setup, these teachers don't get to strike in order to bring about curriculum changes. Many places in the US have made it illegal for teachers to strike, and very few, if any, give teacher's associations any authority at all over what goes into any curriculum. The only form of protest most teachers have is to quit (or to stay on and get fired).



Dem (I think it was Dem) made a distinction between a private health care system and a public one...the latter having some sort of requirement to make certain drugs available, and the former not. Should there be requirements made of private pharmacies too? There seem to be...because in some areas legislation does not allow pharmacists to refuse on moral grounds, and in other areas, the legislation has been changed to allow such refusals.

I don't know about Canada, but the laws in the US do not refer to pharmacists that own their own pharmacies. Pharmacists who work for someone else want to be able to refuse on moral grounds and not get fired for it. In most places, they are not protected - they can be fired. A few places have now tried to pass laws that keep a pharmacy (like RevCo or Eckerd, or CVS, etc) from firing a pharmacist who will not perform the job given to him - which includes dispensing birth control, etc. I don't agree with those laws. Anyone who works for someone else can be fired for not doing their job. I have stated that a pharmacist who wishes to open his own business can refuse to stock whatever he wants, and lose business based on it.

In the US, pretty much all pharmacies already are private, and already determine what medicines to keep in stock. The question is whether or not the pharmacist who wishes to refuse owns the pharmacy or not.

Not....really. Tutors are not really paid to teach. They are paid to reinforce what has already been taught.
I have to disagree with you here. I worked as a tutor for quite a long time and often spent time teaching new material. Tutors are teachers, they simply don't have classes and curricula. The job of tutor is to prepare a student for a class or test. Whether that requires new material or reinforcing what has already been taught is based on the level of the student, the level the student needs to reach and the methods of the tutor.

Of course, I would say that college professors fall under the profession of "teacher". Most of them would agree. Yet most of them don't have degrees in teaching, and most end up writing their own curricula (if they decide to teach off of one in the first place).

College professors fall outside of the discussion you are having. Teaching is often only a part of their position and in some universities they are not even required to go to class. Teachers are paid to teach primarily and may have some outside activities. It is not uncommon for Professors to be hired to do something other than teach and teaching is just a side-effect of sorts. As such, they don't really fit into the conversation.

Also, educational requirements at a college level (on the part of the professor) are certainly not comparable to the level of understanding of teaching methods that is required when dealing with younger students. In earlier education we open the mouths of the students and pour water down their throats. In college, we simply lead them to the water and say, "you're adults. Drink or don't drink as you need it. However, how well you do in the atheletic events of college will likely hinge on how hydrated you are."

Early education teachers are more likely to have an actual degree in education, as are special needs teachers, and "gifted" (ie. advanced classes) teachers. These teachers usually get paid more than those who do not have such a degree.

I see you agree. Good.

When I referred to teachers being handed a book and told to teach it, I was referring to college professors, whom you apparently don't count as teachers.

College professors are rarely handed a book and told to teach. There may be some colleges and universities that do such things but I would say they are likely a rarity. At all three of the universities I attended, it was not uncommon to be taught out of a book written by the professor. In other cases it was common for the faculty of a department to work together to create the curricula for each class level within the department. Then the professor commonly selected text books s/he felt best supported that curricula. It is patently different, in general, than lower levels of education and the way classes and curricula are created and textbooks are selected.[/QUOTE]

That said, I don't agree with your views on science, Sin. Science is a discipline that defines itself. As such it is not a philosophy that excludes something from the discipline but the discipline itself. The discipline has proved itself useful because it is defined the way it is.

It makes no attempts to be 'objective' or to define 'objective' or 'absolute' reality. In fact a major part of the discipline is the acceptance that it can't. Science is subjective in the sense that it can only make conclusions on things it can directly or indirectly observe. In the case of ID, we have not indirectly or directly observed anything that would draw us to the conclusion, the theory, of ID. By definition, scientists must make a hypothesis that explains observations in the simplist possible way. Anything that is not necessary to explain the observations should be excluded as not really being based on observation. An intelligent designer falls into this category. If a student brought up ID, a responsible teacher would say no more than explaining the limitations of science and that ID falls outside of the boundaries of it. To go further than that is really delving into philosophies/religious beliefs.

College professors fall outside of the discussion you are having.

No, some college profesors fall outside the discussion. Some are hired specifically as teachers, as was the case in the institution I attended for undergrad. It is at research institutions that a professor is often hired to do something other than teach (and they are often really crappy teachers).

Also, educational requirements at a college level (on the part of the professor) are certainly not comparable to the level of understanding of teaching methods that is required when dealing with younger students. In earlier education we open the mouths of the students and pour water down their throats. In college, we simply lead them to the water and say, "you're adults. Drink or don't drink as you need it. However, how well you do in the atheletic events of college will likely hinge on how hydrated you are."

Both things are teaching. The fact that the methods are different was actually part of my point.

I see you agree. Good.

With what, exactly? I certainly don't agree that someone must have a degree in teaching in order to be a teacher. The vast majority of teachers in this country don't, but I would hardly exclude them from the profession.

College professors are rarely handed a book and told to teach.

Rarely, but it does happen. Most of the ones I have seen are handed the name of the course and a short, usually one sentence description, and then have to figure out the rest on their own, including what (if any) book to use. I'm actually TA'ing for a course essentially like that, with a few more nebulous ideas of what it might be thrown in. Unfortunately, the prof I'm TA'ing for was too lazy to really plan things out, so the curriculum has actually been developed on the fly, as we've gone through the course - and has been developed moreso by the TA's than by the teacher.

It is patently different, in general, than lower levels of education and the way classes and curricula are created and textbooks are selected.

Again, this is part of my point. Professor who teach college classes are still teachers, but their system is very different. My flute teacher is still a teacher, but his system is different from public school teachers (in Canada or the US).

I have to disagree with you here. I worked as a tutor for quite a long time and often spent time teaching new material.

When you say "new material", do you actually mean "material the student had never seen before and was not supposed to have seen before"? I've had to teach essentially "new material" as a tutor before, but it was always because the student had taken a class and (a) not paid attention or (b) not understood at all.

The job of tutor is to prepare a student for a class or test. Whether that requires new material or reinforcing what has already been taught is based on the level of the student, the level the student needs to reach and the methods of the tutor.

If you are preparing a student for a class or test, you are going over things they should already know. Otherwise, they wouldn't be expected to take the class or the test.

That said, I don't agree with your views on science, Sin. Science is a discipline that defines itself. As such it is not a philosophy that excludes something from the discipline but the discipline itself. The discipline has proved itself useful because it is defined the way it is.

It makes no attempts to be 'objective' or to define 'objective' or 'absolute' reality. In fact a major part of the discipline is the acceptance that it can't. Science is subjective in the sense that it can only make conclusions on things it can directly or indirectly observe. In the case of ID, we have not indirectly or directly observed anything that would draw us to the conclusion, the theory, of ID. By definition, scientists must make a hypothesis that explains observations in the simplist possible way. Anything that is not necessary to explain the observations should be excluded as not really being based on observation. An intelligent designer falls into this category. If a student brought up ID, a responsible teacher would say no more than explaining the limitations of science and that ID falls outside of the boundaries of it. To go further than that is really delving into philosophies/religious beliefs. My views on science are another topic completely. My views on teaching a science course are what I have been dealing with all along. Not once did I say you would have to discuss ID as though it were science. Nor did I say that you should devote a lot of time to it. But because it is a contemporary issue, it bears looking into. How does ID impact science right now? Is it interfereing with science? Is it attempting to replace science, is the view that ID is correct in anyway going to affect scientists. YES. And it should be discussed in that context. Jesus fricking Christ I'm sick of people talking shit here. Let this damn thread die the death it deserves.

the netherlands has laws that allow medical people to refuse to treat any nazis or nazi collaberators.

I wouldn't be able to teach certain people properly if I was teaching them (for example racists or nazis) as my hatred of them and their beliefs would cause me to be biased against them even subconciosly

When you say "new material", do you actually mean "material the student had never seen before and was not supposed to have seen before"? I've had to teach essentially "new material" as a tutor before, but it was always because the student had taken a class and (a) not paid attention or (b) not understood at all.

When I say new material I mean material the student has never seen before because they have either not taken the class or are about to take the class and want to be prepared for it. Material they were exposed to but didn't pick up for whatever reason (I find it more often than not to be the fault of the teacher, but nevermind that) is obviously not new material.

If you are preparing a student for a class or test, you are going over things they should already know. Otherwise, they wouldn't be expected to take the class or the test.
Really? So a student that say, I don't know, dropped out of high school isn't expected to get a GED? I didn't realize. A student that knows a little Spanish but would like to start at the second level because they are very close to that level and would learn very little new information in a first level course isn't expecated to take the class? Fortunately, I don't agree with you so I taught them the material.

Incidentally, tutoring is a much more rewarding form of teaching for me because I get to select my students and I can expect much greater things from them. I have yet to meet a student that has let me down.

My views on science are another topic completely. My views on teaching a science course are what I have been dealing with all along. Not once did I say you would have to discuss ID as though it were science. Nor did I say that you should devote a lot of time to it. But because it is a contemporary issue, it bears looking into. How does ID impact science right now? Is it interfereing with science? Is it attempting to replace science, is the view that ID is correct in anyway going to affect scientists. YES. And it should be discussed in that context. Jesus fricking Christ I'm sick of people talking shit here. Let this damn thread die the death it deserves.

Oh, relax. You pointed me to the thread (admittedly six days ago, but I'm a little slow). I was just saying that any discussion of ID should be in a peripheral way that doesn't delve into the theory but simply points out that the idea of an intelligent designer or any supernatural figure is not one that science deals with, not because one doesn't exist but because science can only deal with things there is testable evidence for. It doesn't mean anyone should shake their heads and pretend it does not exist, but it does mean the 'theory' should not be taught in a science classroom.

No, some college profesors fall outside the discussion. Some are hired specifically as teachers, as was the case in the institution I attended for undergrad. It is at research institutions that a professor is often hired to do something other than teach (and they are often really crappy teachers).



Both things are teaching. The fact that the methods are different was actually part of my point.



With what, exactly? I certainly don't agree that someone must have a degree in teaching in order to be a teacher. The vast majority of teachers in this country don't, but I would hardly exclude them from the profession.



Rarely, but it does happen. Most of the ones I have seen are handed the name of the course and a short, usually one sentence description, and then have to figure out the rest on their own, including what (if any) book to use. I'm actually TA'ing for a course essentially like that, with a few more nebulous ideas of what it might be thrown in. Unfortunately, the prof I'm TA'ing for was too lazy to really plan things out, so the curriculum has actually been developed on the fly, as we've gone through the course - and has been developed moreso by the TA's than by the teacher.



Again, this is part of my point. Professor who teach college classes are still teachers, but their system is very different. My flute teacher is still a teacher, but his system is different from public school teachers (in Canada or the US).

Yes, but since you were talking about public school teachers, it really doesn't matter now does it. Also, there is a reason why not everyone teaches is not called a teacher. Professors are not called teachers, but they teaching. Tutors are not called teachers but they teach. Teaching does not place you under some nebulous term 'teacher' unless you are using it in a form different than is used in classrooms.