UNBELIEVABLE - Texas Ed Agency set to delete Armstrong from texts

[Wrinkle]

Glad you finally cleared that up, although the leanings argument wasn't mentioned at all in your initial post.

Although whether Vermont is conservative or whether Texas is liberal is irrelevant. The reasoning for dumping Armstrong from the books is decidedly nonpartisan.

...is it now?

[rwarn17588]

...is it now?

Well, do you have any proof that it isn't? The explanation was made, and it's airtight reasoning.

Assumptions by you are not proof.

[Wrinkle]

Glad you finally cleared that up, although the leanings argument wasn't mentioned at all in your initial post.

Although whether Vermont is conservative or whether Texas is liberal is irrelevant. The reasoning for dumping Armstrong from the books is decidedly nonpartisan. Anyone who thinks Armstrong is a scientist is the type who thinks a faith healer is a licensed physician.

Ya see, I doubt a majority of people would agree with you on that.

The article did state some other achievements by Mr. Armstrong besides the ability to descend a short ladder. Offhand, being a test pilot at Dryden, in aircraft which may or may not even fly, has some scientific conotations.

He has B.S. and Master degrees in Areospace Engineering (Purdue, then USC, after being accepted to MIT) and worked at DARPA for awhile before becoming a professor of areospace engineering at Cincinnati University after his astronaut days.

He served on the boards of two NASA Investigations, that of the Apollo 13 and the Roger's Commission investigating the Challenger accident.

Did I mention that he piloted the first manned landing on the Moon?

To compare his work as faith healing vs medical doctor is insulting, to him and to the entire space program.

[Wrinkle]

Well, do you have any proof that it isn't? The explanation was made, and it's airtight reasoning.

Assumptions by you are not proof.

'Airtight reasoning' it wasn't. It was their ostensible justification. No motivation was given. All of it was crap, imo.

Poor little 5th graders "have too many names to remember" is not a reason, it's a justification. Poor one at that. Besides, Neil Armstrong is one of the few names I would wish kids to know about for sure.

[rwarn17588]

Ya see, I doubt a majority of people would agree with you on that.

The article did state some other achievements by Mr. Armstrong besides the ability to descend a short ladder. Offhand, being a test pilot at Dryden, in aircraft which may or may not even fly, has some scientific conotations.

He has B.S. and Master degrees in Areospace Engineering (Purdue, then USC, after being accepted to MIT) and worked at DARPA for awhile before becoming a professor of areospace engineering at Cincinnati University after his astronaut days.

He served on the boards of two NASA Investigations, that of the Apollo 13 and the Roger's Commission investigating the Challenger accident.

Did I mention that he piloted the first manned landing on the Moon?

To compare his work as faith healing vs medical doctor is insulting, to him and to the entire space program.

All those things may look OK on a resume, but they sure don't make you a scientist -- especially when a good portion of the things you listed occurred *after* his space flight.

What scientific papers has he written? What invention or innovation did he create? He may have been the first man on the moon, but being on a space capsule that's nearly completely controlled by others sure doesn't make you a scientist. It's more of a role of guinea pig. And I've read a few accounts by former astronauts who fully admit that's what they essentially were. There were more scientific *subjects*, not scientists themselves.

With your sort of logic, Laika the dog should be described as a scientist, too.

As far as Texas' reasoning being "crap," you admit that's your opinion. That doesn't mean much. Give facts to support your contention. You haven't done a very good job with that so far, except that the proposal has hurt your po' widdle feelings.

[Wrinkle]

All those things may look OK on a resume, but they sure don't make you a scientist -- especially when a good portion of the things you listed occurred *after* his space flight.

What scientific papers has he written? What invention or innovation did he create? He may have been the first man on the moon, but being on a space capsule that's nearly completely controlled by others sure doesn't make you a scientist. It's more of a role of guinea pig. And I've read a few accounts by former astronauts who fully admit that's what they essentially were. There were more scientific *subjects*, not scientists themselves.

With your sort of logic, Laika the dog should be described as a scientist, too.

As far as Texas' reasoning being "crap," you admit that's your opinion. That doesn't mean much. Give facts to support your contention. You haven't done a very good job with that so far, except that the proposal has hurt your po' widdle feelings.

Your ignorance is showing here.

The 'Eagle' landing was completely controlled by the pilot. If you knew anything about our space program, you'd have known that.

And, from 1961 until the Eagle touchdown, everything the NASA team did was research, innovation, invention and technical development in very real terms. Neil Armstrong was a large part of that process.

The 'guinea pig' comment was one made early in the Mercury program, by one astronaunt, during an early 'reasearch' mission testing attributes of space flight. Some of that research centered on man's ability to physically handle the environment. Unknowns being reconciled. I think that's called research.

If you think no papers, innovation or knowledge were produced from these experiments, I suggest you go search the NASA archives.

In fact, the microprocessor your pc uses is a direct descendant of space research.

[custosnox]

All those things may look OK on a resume, but they sure don't make you a scientist -- especially when a good portion of the things you listed occurred *after* his space flight.

What scientific papers has he written? What invention or innovation did he create? He may have been the first man on the moon, but being on a space capsule that's nearly completely controlled by others sure doesn't make you a scientist. It's more of a role of guinea pig. And I've read a few accounts by former astronauts who fully admit that's what they essentially were. There were more scientific *subjects*, not scientists themselves.

With your sort of logic, Laika the dog should be described as a scientist, too.

As far as Texas' reasoning being "crap," you admit that's your opinion. That doesn't mean much. Give facts to support your contention. You haven't done a very good job with that so far, except that the proposal has hurt your po' widdle feelings.

I have to ask, in all reality, what differance does it make if he was a scientist or not?  Is the future of our science class going to consist of "okay children, years ago, some guy, who wasn't a scientist so his name isn't important, took the first step on the moon"? Or are we just going to pretend that we didn't go to the moon? Should we start picking through all of history and ignore all contributions because the person making them don't meet up to some criteria?

[cannon_fodder]

I think it's petty to remove him, but at the same time it isn't that big of a deal.  I would expect Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to be the two astronauts school kids would know.  Then again, in my world, they'd also have some clue about why Einstein was seen as a genius and who Oppenheimer was.  Bah, my standards would require kids to learn. 

If my 9 year old can understand, on a basic level, relativity, particle theory, and the like . . . why can't high school kids?  I'm not saying they need to be able to do the math associated with it or extrapolate the theory - but they can understand that as things move faster time slows down, and know that such information is actually useful given our reliance on satellites.  I'd assume the 5 seconds they need to learn the the names of a couple astronauts wouldn't infringe on such learning?

And by the way:

Science:  a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways.

The whole "god snapped his fingers" theory of the origin of things wouldn't count as "science" either.   Strange that in Texas a school district can teach creationism as part of a science curriculum when they care so much about making sure science class is only for science.
- - -

The real reason they had to remove Armstrong was to avoid confusion with the more important Texas Armstrong:

[custosnox]

The whole "god snapped his fingers" theory of the origin of things wouldn't count as "science" either.   Strange that in Texas a school district can teach creationism as part of a science curriculum when they care so much about making sure science class is only for science.

As far as I know, and can find, Texas has not included creatism into the science cirriculum.  In fact, the state that I am aware of that has done this was Kansas, which ended after the Flying Spaghetti Monstor onslot.  Earlier this year, the "Strength & Weaknesses" argument on evolution was taken out, and the creationists threw a fit and fought to get it back in.  Still haven't found the outcome of this.

[cannon_fodder]

You're right.  I thought Texas had decided TO include it during the last debate.  It appears Creationism is not in the curriculum in Texas, but you can teach it by using some loopholes if you want to (per a quick Google Search).

My bad for jumping to a conclusion.  But now my hypothesis has been tested and failed.  So I'll change my understanding to include the new data.  How very scientific. 

[Wrinkle]

As I am perceiving things today, Creationism's definition has expanded by a magnitude of power to include 'Evolution', should it be proven.

That is, if evoluton exists, then He created it, too.

But, that's a whole 'nuther thread.

[Wrinkle]

The real reason they had to remove Armstrong was to avoid confusion with the more important Texas Armstrong:

LOL, yeah, he didn't have to use any of those damn fossel fuels.

Never mind the metal parts, welding, castings of his bike, and the leathers of his wears.

[PonderInc]

The real concern here is that textbook companies don't offer multiple editions of a textbook. (Too expensive.) When large/populous states such as California, NY, or Texas require specific language/changes, they affect all the students in the nation who use that particular textbook.

(This is especially disturbing when you see states trying to eliminate evolution from science textbooks.  Just b/c one state wants to live in a backwater swamp of myth and misinformation, it shouldn't be foisted upon the entire country.)

On the bright side, history books now include perspectives other than those of  western, Judeo-Christian, white males.  On the other hand, history is so "PC" now, that it's watered down, boring, and useless.