8581

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Teachers deserve low pay

« on: May 03, 2016, 04:13:15 AM »

Even if you neglect to read the surrounding text and decide to go with the chart alone, and even if you approach it from a point of no knowledge about academia, you can simply dismiss the parts which you consider ambiguous. You'll still arrive at a clear conclusion.

But here, have some additional sources:
http://engineerblogs.org/2011/07/academic-breakdown-the-other-stuff/
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/oct/21/universities-research-teaching-minister

Your first link is someone's blog (as opposed to government surveys). On the first source I find the following text on the page:

The balance of research and teaching varies enormously from place to place. Some schools go as far as nearly 80% of time spent on research, and some tilt the balance in the opposite direction.

On the next link you presented I find the following:

The Conservative minister's treatise, Robbins Revisited, published by the Social Market Foundation thinktank, notes a significant shift in emphasis away from teaching in favour of research, particularly in the older institutions. Willetts cites figures showing that in 1963 academics devoted 55% of their time on average to teaching and 45% to research.

For pre-Robbins universities the split is now 40% to 60%, and for institutions created between 1963 and the next huge expansion in universities in 1992 the ratio is 43% to 57%.

In contrast, Willetts notes, the former polytechnics and FE colleges that were made universities after 1992 are "heavily focused on teaching", with a 89% to 11% split.

It seems it's all over the place. Are these figures even based on surveys, or are they averaging the listed requirements of universities?

8582

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Teachers deserve low pay

« on: May 02, 2016, 08:23:24 PM »

The article you linked just says that professors are spending too much time doing administrative duties, but neglects to break down whether those are teaching or research related administrative duties. The accompanying chart that you linked is not broken down between research and teaching. None of it supports your position that professors first and foremost researchers at all.

In order for your evidence to matter you need to be able to defend it.

8583

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Teachers deserve low pay

« on: May 02, 2016, 08:06:44 PM »

If you can't tell me which of those activities are research related and by which percentage then I am afraid we will have to go with the surveys which say that the professors do (and enjoy) much more teaching than researching.

8584

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Teachers deserve low pay

« on: May 02, 2016, 07:58:38 PM »

I only see the word "research" three times in that chart, and they appear to add up to about 5% of the professor's time.

I see the word "teaching" zero times in the chart, therefore research is infinity times more important!!!1!

Silly Tom, that's not how things work.

It appears that you provided an invalid source, then. How are we supposed to know what percentage of those emails are research related and which are teaching related?

I do see that teaching related activities, such as Instruction and Class Preparation vastly overshadow the research related activities in that chart. That seems to support the surveys referenced at http://www.nea.org/home/33067.htm

Full-time, tenured faculty must serve on academic committees and, at most four-year colleges and universities, conduct research as well. In spite of these requirements, faculty responding to surveys overwhelmingly report that teaching is their favorite responsibility and that they do more teaching than anything else. According to a government survey, even faculty at research universities spend considerably more time teaching than conducting research.

 Once you provide a source that better supports your position, we may proceed with the discussion.

8585

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explanation of sun's motion

« on: May 02, 2016, 07:47:26 PM »

Thanks for yet another knee-jerk "Earth Not a Globe" reference, Tom, those aren't getting old at all.  Also, do you even know what is written there?  Go back and read it again, it isn't the great rebuttal you seem to think it is.  He pretends to have scored a big victory by pointing out that the distance, mass, and orbit were inaccurate.  This, for an object that had never been known to be a planet at all.  (The blue object later known to be Neptune had been observed and recorded before, but each time it was thought to be a star)  Of course you're going to have some math errors when you don't have much data yet!  The math was a long, laborious, manual process at the time, they were doing just enough math as they could do on as little data as they had (this was based on observations of Uranus, for which there was a lot less observational history than what exists for the inner planets.)  The fact that Neptune was exactly where the math said it would be, the fact that the math led to the discovery, and the math came from the heliocentric model, is never "addressed in Earth Not a Globe" much less refuted!

The variables used were entirely wrong for the theory of gravity. As I hold a form of celestial gravitation exists (as do most FE believers of whom I am personally aware) based on available evidence, I would have no issue with Le Verrier's claim that Uranus was affected gravitaitonally by some other body.

But his prediction as a proof of gravity as described in RET is entirely superfluous, since his calculations using gravity demanded Neptune have certain properties in size and orbit, which it did not have once it was found.

The eccentricity of Venus is 0-007, the smallest before known; that of Neptune is 0 005.
If we admit for the moment that my views are correct, then LeVerrier's announcement of March 29th is in perfect accordance with that of Professor Peirce of the 16th of the same month, viz. that the present visible planet Neptune is not the mathematical planet to which theory had directed the telescope. None of its elements conform to the theoretical limits. Nor does it perform the functions on which alone its existence was predicted, viz. those of removing that opprobrium of astronomers, the unexplained perturbations of Uranus.

We have it on the authority of Professor Peirce that if we ascribe to Neptune a mass of three-fourths of the amount predicted by LeVerrier, it will have the best possible effect in reducing the residual perturbations of Uranus below their former value; but will nevertheless leave them on the average two-thirds as great as before.

It is indeed remarkable that the two distinguished European astronomers, LeVerrier and Adams, should, by a wrong hypothesis, have been led to a right conclusion respecting the actual position of a planet in the heavens. It required for their success a compensation of errors. The unforeseen error of sixty years in their assumed period was compensated by the other unforeseen error of their assumed office of the planet. If both of them had committed only one theoretical error, (not then, but now believed to be such,) they would, according to Prof. Peirce's computations, have agreed in pointing the telescope in the wrong direction, and Neptune might have been unknown for years to come.

8586

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Teachers deserve low pay

« on: May 02, 2016, 07:30:07 PM »

Teaching-related activities are simply less prominent than those stemming from research. I'm sorry that you spoiled your devil's advocate argument by invoking university professors, but it is what it is. You can still salvage it by pretending that by "professors" you meant "not professors", but you need to hurry. You could also bring up academic career pathways and suggest that obviously you weren't referring to the research or "balanced" pathways.

I only see the word "research" three times in that chart, and they appear to add up to about 5% of the professor's time.

8587

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explanation of sun's motion

« on: May 02, 2016, 05:11:57 PM »

The best example of the superior explanatory value of the heliocentric, elliptical, gravitational, Keplerian system has to be the discovery of Neptune.  Under the geocentric, circular, epicyclic, Ptolemaic system, no amount of adding epicycles would lead you to think "Uranus moves strangely, maybe there is an as-yet undiscovered planet infuencing it?"  No, you would just keep adding the epicycles, get a good fit, and stop.  What really happened was that after nearly three years of manual regression analysis undertaken independently by two astronomers from 1843-1846, a position in the sky was calculated for the hypothetical object.  When a telescope was pointed there for the express purpose of finding that object, it was found in less than an hour.  It was observed for the next two nights, it was seen to move against the background stars, and the model was confirmed.

The discovery of Neptune is addressed in Earth Not a Globe: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za60.htm

8588

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Teachers deserve low pay

« on: May 02, 2016, 04:54:41 PM »

Maybe if you were a professor-researcher juggling your time between teaching and making money for me with research, or if you were a pioneer in a new emerging field, you would get a little more. No other teachers are getting a high salary for repeating the work of others. Why should you?

You are attempting to apply free market principles to a debate which cannot take place within the context of a free market.

If education were a truly free market, then teachers would get paid what they are worth, which would be determined by what parents are willing to pay for their children's education. What they "should" be paid would be immaterial.

On the other hand, if we are paying teachers based on what they "should" be paid, then we have already left the free market behind and started investing in children's education for reasons other than profit. You cannot judge a fair salary based on a profit motive in that scenario.

There are such a thing as private schools. Teachers still aren't highly paid. In fact, they often get paid less at a private school.

8589

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Teachers deserve low pay

« on: May 02, 2016, 03:40:32 PM »

Menial?  What do you actually know about the skills that are required to be a good teacher?

If it was such a desirable skill, why aren't teachers getting high salaries?

Because of reductionists like you?

I'm not going to pay you a high salary if all you can do is repeat the works of others to children.

Maybe if you were a professor-researcher juggling your time between teaching and making money for me with research, or if you were a pioneer in a new emerging field, you would get a little more. No other teachers are getting a high salary for repeating the work of others. Why should you?

8590

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?

« on: May 02, 2016, 02:45:24 PM »

Tom Bishop ... can you please answer how the Flat Earth Model can explain the different observations from the northern and southern hemispheres?
I shall repeat them again.... all are irrefutable ... any hobbyist astronomer can make these observations by simple travelling to the opposite hemisphere and taking a telescope with them>

How does the flat earth model explain ...
1. The fact that 'down' here (ie Southern Hemisphere, I am 1600km south of the Tropic of Capricorn) we cannot see Polaris, and many of the other stars which can be seen from the northern hemisphere, yet many of the stars that we can see cannot be seen from the northern hemisphere. eg

In the Flat Earth literature William Carpenter tells us of accounts where Polaris was seen beyond the equator. In Earth Not a Globe Rowbotham corroborates William Carpenter with accounts of seeing Polaris at 23.5 degrees beyond the equator.

2. In the southern hemisphere the stars appear to rotate clockwise around the south celestial pole, whereas in the northern hemisphere the stars appear to rotate anticlockwise around the northern celestial pole (ie Polaris)

The stars are rotating against each other like two gears. I prefer the bi-polar Flat Earth model where the center of these gears are over the two poles.

3. In the southern hemisphere we see a different view of the moon compared to the view from the northern hemisphere (https://i.imgur.com/ZPY5fvh.jpg and http://guanolad.com/stuff/moon_orientation.jpg)

This is perfectly explainable. Imagine a green arrow suspended horizontally above your head pointing to the North. Standing 50 feet to the South of the arrow it is pointing "downwards" towards the Northern horizon. Standing 50 feet to the North of the arrow, looking back at it, it points "upwards" above your head to the North. The arrow flip-flops, pointing down or away from the horizon depending on which side you stand.

4. In the southern hemisphere the phases of the moon work differently (http://resources.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/time/moon/hemispheres.html)

This has the same explanation of above.

8591

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: %100 evidence that proves the holocaust is true!

« on: May 02, 2016, 02:35:58 PM »

If thousands of eye-witnesses from both sides of the event and corroborating physical evidence don't convince you, I seriously doubt a debate on an internet forum will.

I don't think there is a single eye witness who saw the murder of 6 million jews.

8592

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Teachers deserve low pay

« on: May 02, 2016, 02:31:39 PM »

Menial?  What do you actually know about the skills that are required to be a good teacher?

If it was such a desirable skill, why aren't teachers getting high salaries?

Professors take jobs at universities primarily to teach, not do research. [...] No one goes into professorship because of the research.

I'm sorry, but you're simply incorrect on that matter. A false premise spawns untestable conclusions.

My position was backed up with a source. They go into it for the teaching. Where is your source that the professors are going into professorship so they can make money for their universities with the research?

8593

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Teachers deserve low pay

« on: May 02, 2016, 01:30:02 PM »

Can you explain why teaching children is bad?

It's not bad. It's just not all that deserving of high pay like many teachers want. You probably took algebra in school. Do you deserve a high salary just because you are repeating what you know to some children and having them do some homework from the book and an exam from the publisher?

What is a "high salary"?

That question is location specific.

Why did you bring it up then?  I can tell you I looked at the starting salary and the average salary for a teacher with 15 years experience in the USA in 2012 and I can tell you that there are very places in the USA where the salary would be considered "high".  Decent is a more apt word I think.

I didn't mean to suggest that they are getting high salaries, only that they do not deserve one for such menial work.

8594

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explanation of sun's motion

« on: May 02, 2016, 12:37:58 PM »

I already stated quiet clearly that the other planets do have a gibbous phase,but Venus and Mercury are the only planets that show phases almost like the moon. You do seem to have a very selective memory! Yes, your Mars photos are good and nicely illustrate exactly what I said!

Now what about:
"When Mercury and Venus appear largest (ie closest to us) they have a shape like a crescent moon and are very close in the sky to the sun (they sometimes even transit).
ALL the other planets when they appear largest (ie closest to us) have a completely full shape (though most are too small to discern) and are furthest in the sky from the sun (overhead at MIDNIGHT)."

There's a much bigger difference between the pair Venus and Mercury and all the others.

What is the Flat Earth explanation?

That would be because Venus and Mercury are a lot closer to the sun. Next question?

And I also asked how the "Flat Earth" determines the locations of the planets.

They can be located by using an astronomy atlas.

For the Globe model the locations of the planets is well known.

The Ancient Babylonians, a flat earth society, could predict the paths of the planets in the sky very well. Their path is a celestial event which comes in patterns, and is easily predicted. Astronomers still use the same methods to predict celestial events today.

8595

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Calculating the center of the earth by using just a compass

« on: May 02, 2016, 05:46:42 AM »

Tom Bishop claims: "In the entire Arctic and Antarctic circle the field lines are vertical and a normal compass is useless.",
but as you can see from above, the South Magnetic Pole is not even within the Antarctic Circle and Antarctic workers actually do use appropriately weighted magnetic compasses for navigation within most parts or Antarctica!

I believe I said normal compass.

8596

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Teachers deserve low pay

« on: May 02, 2016, 05:31:54 AM »

Can you explain why teaching children is bad?

It's not bad. It's just not all that deserving of high pay like many teachers want. You probably took algebra in school. Do you deserve a high salary just because you are repeating what you know to some children and having them do some homework from the book and an exam from the publisher?

What is a "high salary"?

That question is location specific.

8597

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explanation of sun's motion

« on: May 02, 2016, 05:25:08 AM »

You don't really see the massive differences do you?

When Venus and Mercury appear largest (and presumably closest to the earth) they are between the earth and the sun and their phase appears like a crescent moon (or even completely hidden in the glare of the sun).
When ALL the other planets appear largest (and presumably closest to the earth) they are at their highest in the sky at around midnight (furthest from the sun) and they appear completely full.

This is incorrect. Mars has phases, just not the full range of phases like the planets closer to the sun. Mars has a bigger orbital diameter, and therefore our view of its orbit is more limited. We will not see as many phases as the planets nearest the sun.

https://fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect19/Sect19_10.html

From a 10 inch telescope:

8598

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explanation of sun's motion

« on: May 02, 2016, 01:33:22 AM »

Why do they have to transit? It makes sense that only the closest planets would transit. Obviously Pluto or Uranus aren't going to get in the way of you and the sun.

You completely ignore the other parts of the earlier posts!

Mercury and Venus are the only planets that show phases almost like the moon. Why is it so?
When Mercury and Venus appear largest (ie closest to us) they have a shape like a crescent moon and are very close in the sky to the sun (they sometimes even transit).

ALL the other planets when they appear largest (ie closest to us) have a completely full shape (though most are too small to discern) and are furthest in the sky from the sun (overhead at MIDNIGHT).

In other words there is a very big difference in the behaviour of Mercury and Venus from all the other planets that cannot simply be put down to distance from the sun.

Also you claim that Venus and Mercury are closer to the sun than the other planets. Would you please show some evidence for this. I have never seen any evidence for any calculations for these for the flat earth model.

Firstly, we don't see all of the sky over the earth. Much of it is lost to the perspective that causes the sun and stars to set (or perhaps the EA if one subscribes to that). We only see a limited portion of the sky at any one time.

In order to see the phases of the planets, the planet needs to be seen from all positions as it circles the sun. Mercury and Venus are close enough that their small circuits are viewable from many positions.

If the orbit of a distant planet is really big, you are not going to be able to see it in all positions of its orbit around the sun, only when it is over you when it is night and opposite from the sun. Hence, no or limited phases (as in the case of mars).

8599

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Teachers deserve low pay

« on: May 02, 2016, 01:21:15 AM »

Can you explain why teaching children is bad?

It's not bad. It's just not all that deserving of high pay like many teachers want. You probably took algebra in school. Do you deserve a high salary just because you are repeating what you know to some children and having them do some homework from the book and an exam from the publisher?

8600

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explanation of sun's motion

« on: May 02, 2016, 01:08:06 AM »

So I was right in assuming the wiki meant only Mercury and Venus orbit the Sun, unless the other planets orbit outside the habitable plane of Earth.  If that is the case what observations led to the conclusion that all of the planets are orbiting the sun and that they are not moving for the same reason as the stars?

Why do these other planets have orbits that include making a loop and things like Venus, Mercury, and all the observable moons in our system orbit as we are told they do in the RE model.

They don't necessarily need to be outside of the habitable plane, they just need to be far away from the sun that they would never be in a position to get between the distance between you and the sun when it sets.