Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Scientific Method" & Heisenburg Principle - WAS New poll for Unschooling-dotcom
Tim and Maureen
> **I just voted on the poll and noticed that 22 of the 31 votes sofar are
> frommore
>
> NFs. (I'm an INFJ.) I've seen this mentioned briefly by the
>more drawn to
> knowledgeable here among us. Why would NFs tend to be
> unschooling than other personality types? Could someoneplease expand on this?**
>polls. Maybe
> Maybe they're not. Maybe NF's are slightly more likely to answer
> they're more likely to take personality quizzes. Maybe they'remore likely to
> want to compare and contrast with others. Maybe it's justcoincidence. :) Be
> careful about drawing conclusions from inadaquete data andunrepresentative
> samples.*never* have occurred to me.
>
> Deborah
>ROFL!!!! No way are you an NF, Deborah. :) That thinking would
>JulieThe above "data" piece is liely a joke, but it's started RANT-TIME!!!! :O)))))
Being an ENFP and enduring Research Methods in Grad school, it "occured" to me, but my reality was that "drawing conclusions from inadaquete data and unrepresentative samples" happens constantly (eg. we assume we will be alive tomorrow), even when the "Scientific Method" is used. Heisenburg got close with this "Uncertainty" principle - when the scientists participates in the world s/he affects the results.
Heard a quote this morning on CrossCountry Check-up (CBC Radio) http://www.cbc.ca/checkup/ that "feelings are a mode of thinking and so is thinking." Something like that. As an NF I am ranting on the devaluing of feeling as a means of thinking. AND SO WHAT if I draw a conclusion. A woman (her name anyone?) scientist was given a Nobel Prize in Science/Genetics for her work with beans. She was in her 80's before any recognized that by "befriending" and "nurturing" her beans she had advanced genetics greatly, but was ignored - too "unscientific." DAMN that mind!!!Not only limits my world, but reduces all our reality.
Same thinking in medicine. 1988 and Tim and Maureen have Brianna. After one week, she's screaming in pain! Off to the doc. Don't know. Maybe it's colic. Months pass with Bri bringing women running across Hillside Mall (hi, Tia!) to help the new-born get its fingers out of the door. Nope, just us! :O(((( At 19 months my Grandmother is crying that it looks like her g-grand-d is dying. She's seen it before and she's freaked.
Off to the doctor's for mysterious fever, rashes, and ask about the possibility that she's allergic to something. I quote the Scientific Method Mavens: "There is no such thing. We've proven that unless you are anaphalactic, it's not possible." Baby gets a weeping/bleeding diaper rash from shoulder blades to back-o-knees. GP referes us to Dermatologist (Vic General, Tia) takes one cursory look AND tells us IT IS FRIKKIN' IN-GROWN HAIR FOLICLES!!!!" (My emphasis, not his.) Ah, the scientific method hard at work.
So a really nasty human being of a naturopath told Maureen to take her off milk when Bri was 21 mon. It helped (but not completely.) (Soon learned that milk and milk ingred's are in all commercial formulas etc.) Told the medico-doc that it helped. He ranted all over us about the virtues of milk (now understand that the milk producers bought the doctors off in the 30's 40's and 50's) and the BEST quote was "there is absolutely no way a cow's milk molecule can get thru a woman's breast." Whatever.
Since then I only use the Sci Method sparingly and never ever to make real decisions at work. I know thru feeling, but that's a lot more complex that "happy/sad/scared." It's ethics, intuition, and caring (feeling + action = caring). Way better than life lived by data.
Ranting thots
Tim T :O))
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
**Since then I only use the Sci Method sparingly and never ever to make real
decisions at work. I know thru feeling, but that's a lot more complex that
"happy/sad/scared." It's ethics, intuition, and caring (feeling + action =
caring). Way better than life lived by data. Ranting thots**
And what did ANY of your examples have to do with drawing conclusions about
what kind of people are drawn to unschooling from answers to a poll given by 2%
or less of an email discussion list that is a self selected sample of
unschoolers to start with??? I didn't say a word about scientific method or
anyotherdamn thing. And I certainly said not one peep devaluing feeling.
Sheesh.
Deborah
decisions at work. I know thru feeling, but that's a lot more complex that
"happy/sad/scared." It's ethics, intuition, and caring (feeling + action =
caring). Way better than life lived by data. Ranting thots**
And what did ANY of your examples have to do with drawing conclusions about
what kind of people are drawn to unschooling from answers to a poll given by 2%
or less of an email discussion list that is a self selected sample of
unschoolers to start with??? I didn't say a word about scientific method or
anyotherdamn thing. And I certainly said not one peep devaluing feeling.
Sheesh.
Deborah
Tim and Maureen
Deborah,
I found your remarks weighted toward discounting the exploration process I see in this list. I found them to be based upon all that scientific "discussion" I heard over and over in university. I don't want anyone reading your remarks to stop exploring because 1) they have to consider it scientific to be worthy 2) they have to avoid drawing false conclusions at all times. In my experience, when science enters into personal exploration the work stops. If this discussion was about astrology (which is very unscientific) and people were learning to be happy inside their own bodies/skin, then would you stop the discussion with comments of validity and reliability?
or less of an email discussion list that is a self selected sample of
unschoolers to start with???
No, not one word, but you used the lexicon of science, "slightly more likely" which is probability. You used "just coincidence," which is "random and spurious." Then you cried the warning I heard throughout my schooling in research methods "Be careful about drawing conclusions from inadaquete data and unrepresentative samples." Data and Sampling are science words too. So lots of science in a few short sentences.
Tim T
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I found your remarks weighted toward discounting the exploration process I see in this list. I found them to be based upon all that scientific "discussion" I heard over and over in university. I don't want anyone reading your remarks to stop exploring because 1) they have to consider it scientific to be worthy 2) they have to avoid drawing false conclusions at all times. In my experience, when science enters into personal exploration the work stops. If this discussion was about astrology (which is very unscientific) and people were learning to be happy inside their own bodies/skin, then would you stop the discussion with comments of validity and reliability?
>And what did ANY of your examples have to do with drawing conclusions aboutwhat kind of people are drawn to unschooling from answers to a poll given by 2%
or less of an email discussion list that is a self selected sample of
unschoolers to start with???
No, not one word, but you used the lexicon of science, "slightly more likely" which is probability. You used "just coincidence," which is "random and spurious." Then you cried the warning I heard throughout my schooling in research methods "Be careful about drawing conclusions from inadaquete data and unrepresentative samples." Data and Sampling are science words too. So lots of science in a few short sentences.
>I didn't say a word about scientific method or anyotherdamn thing.I heard a loud PEEP in the tone of the mesage, i.e. that we SHOULD be careful and we SHOULD be more scientific. The power of the word SHOULD is legendary and I despise it's use. It halts exploration, (which I see happening for people as they try M-B on for size), because we should have clean clothes, perfect notes, and holded hands upon our desk.
>And I certainly said not one peep devaluing feeling.Even the "sheesh"! That's clearly another SHOULD. "Tim SHOULDN'T rant." Ain't gonna change nothing! But I encourage the exploration of this further if you'd like! :O))
>Sheesh.My thots
>Deborah
Tim T
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Linda Siemsen
Whoa! Wait a minute here. Your experience with science is so sad. So was mine. I find it easy to believe that you were taught that at university. I taught at Michigan State (as an undergraduate), Iowa State (as a graduate student), and at Columbus State Community College (as an adjunct professor). I taught freshman chemistry for years. Freshman chemistry at the college level is about one-third history, one-third review (element names and symbols, density, algebra review), and one-third new material. And if you get a poor instructor you need to show your work just the way they showed on the blackboard to get partial credit. Undergraduate science courses and some graduate courses are about teaching dogma. There is one true answer and only one true answer. I was still arguing with the professor about multiple ways to solve a problem in graduate school! (He wasn't a shining example of a good teacher.)
There is a huge gulf between science as it is taught (especially undergraduate and lower) and real-life. I'm still a little bitter about this. I did well in high school science courses and was strongly encouraged to major in science. But doing well in high school courses has little relevance to being a practicing scientist. In fact, I did well at the courses in high school and undergraduate and graduate school and failed when it was time to do it for real. Science as found in research labs doesn't look at all like the coursework I took. It is full of lively debates about experiment design, interpretation of results, proper sampling. etc. Real scientists don't agree in fact they argue ALL the time. In fact, that's partly why I am not a scientist anymore. I don't like arguing all the time and defending my opinion.
BUT, there is nothing wrong with using scientific terms. Just because in your experience they were used to stifle dissension doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the terms or the ideas inside of them. And people who cite the scientific method are sometimes just saying I'm right you're wrong. I look at what people do with the scientific method and then make up my mind. And in this case, I strongly agree with Deborah. Yes, it's fun to explore what personality types the people on this list are. It's fun to see what the poll results are. It is wildly inappropriate to extrapolate these results to unschoolers across the country because of this self-selected bias. The best example I know of self-selected bias is unemployment figures. When I was looking for a job, the unemployment rate reported by the American Chemical Society based on a survey of its members (who weren't called just mailed in a form) was approximately 2%. National statistics from the government put the unemployment rate at around 7%. I believe that the government numbers were more accurate. Why? Unemployed chemists were less likely to belong to the society and less likely to fill out a survey.
There is a huge gulf between science as it is taught (especially undergraduate and lower) and real-life. I'm still a little bitter about this. I did well in high school science courses and was strongly encouraged to major in science. But doing well in high school courses has little relevance to being a practicing scientist. In fact, I did well at the courses in high school and undergraduate and graduate school and failed when it was time to do it for real. Science as found in research labs doesn't look at all like the coursework I took. It is full of lively debates about experiment design, interpretation of results, proper sampling. etc. Real scientists don't agree in fact they argue ALL the time. In fact, that's partly why I am not a scientist anymore. I don't like arguing all the time and defending my opinion.
BUT, there is nothing wrong with using scientific terms. Just because in your experience they were used to stifle dissension doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the terms or the ideas inside of them. And people who cite the scientific method are sometimes just saying I'm right you're wrong. I look at what people do with the scientific method and then make up my mind. And in this case, I strongly agree with Deborah. Yes, it's fun to explore what personality types the people on this list are. It's fun to see what the poll results are. It is wildly inappropriate to extrapolate these results to unschoolers across the country because of this self-selected bias. The best example I know of self-selected bias is unemployment figures. When I was looking for a job, the unemployment rate reported by the American Chemical Society based on a survey of its members (who weren't called just mailed in a form) was approximately 2%. National statistics from the government put the unemployment rate at around 7%. I believe that the government numbers were more accurate. Why? Unemployed chemists were less likely to belong to the society and less likely to fill out a survey.
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim and Maureen
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re: Scientific Method" & Heisenburg Principle - WAS New poll for Unschooling-dotcom
Deborah,
I found your remarks weighted toward discounting the exploration process I see in this list. I found them to be based upon all that scientific "discussion" I heard over and over in university. I don't want anyone reading your remarks to stop exploring because 1) they have to consider it scientific to be worthy 2) they have to avoid drawing false conclusions at all times. In my experience, when science enters into personal exploration the work stops. If this discussion was about astrology (which is very unscientific) and people were learning to be happy inside their own bodies/skin, then would you stop the discussion with comments of validity and reliability?
>And what did ANY of your examples have to do with drawing conclusions about
what kind of people are drawn to unschooling from answers to a poll given by 2%
or less of an email discussion list that is a self selected sample of
unschoolers to start with???
No, not one word, but you used the lexicon of science, "slightly more likely" which is probability. You used "just coincidence," which is "random and spurious." Then you cried the warning I heard throughout my schooling in research methods "Be careful about drawing conclusions from inadaquete data and unrepresentative samples." Data and Sampling are science words too. So lots of science in a few short sentences.
>I didn't say a word about scientific method or anyotherdamn thing.
I heard a loud PEEP in the tone of the mesage, i.e. that we SHOULD be careful and we SHOULD be more scientific. The power of the word SHOULD is legendary and I despise it's use. It halts exploration, (which I see happening for people as they try M-B on for size), because we should have clean clothes, perfect notes, and holded hands upon our desk.
>And I certainly said not one peep devaluing feeling.
Even the "sheesh"! That's clearly another SHOULD. "Tim SHOULDN'T rant." Ain't gonna change nothing! But I encourage the exploration of this further if you'd like! :O))
>Sheesh.
>Deborah
My thots
Tim T
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject line! ~~~~
If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll (fetteroll@...), or the list owner, Helen Hegener (HEM-Editor@...).
To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or address an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Tim and Maureen
I'm arguing inappropriate use of science and that societal bias toward the S. Method, and the SHOULDS that come with all this narrow view of the Truth.
Tim T
Tim T
----- Original Message -----
From: Linda Siemsen
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 6:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re: Scientific Method" & Heisenburg Principle - WAS New poll for Unschooling-dotcom
Whoa! Wait a minute here. Your experience with science is so sad. So was mine. I find it easy to believe that you were taught that at university. I taught at Michigan State (as an undergraduate), Iowa State (as a graduate student), and at Columbus State Community College (as an adjunct professor). I taught freshman chemistry for years. Freshman chemistry at the college level is about one-third history, one-third review (element names and symbols, density, algebra review), and one-third new material. And if you get a poor instructor you need to show your work just the way they showed on the blackboard to get partial credit. Undergraduate science courses and some graduate courses are about teaching dogma. There is one true answer and only one true answer. I was still arguing with the professor about multiple ways to solve a problem in graduate school! (He wasn't a shining example of a good teacher.)
There is a huge gulf between science as it is taught (especially undergraduate and lower) and real-life. I'm still a little bitter about this. I did well in high school science courses and was strongly encouraged to major in science. But doing well in high school courses has little relevance to being a practicing scientist. In fact, I did well at the courses in high school and undergraduate and graduate school and failed when it was time to do it for real. Science as found in research labs doesn't look at all like the coursework I took. It is full of lively debates about experiment design, interpretation of results, proper sampling. etc. Real scientists don't agree in fact they argue ALL the time. In fact, that's partly why I am not a scientist anymore. I don't like arguing all the time and defending my opinion.
BUT, there is nothing wrong with using scientific terms. Just because in your experience they were used to stifle dissension doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the terms or the ideas inside of them. And people who cite the scientific method are sometimes just saying I'm right you're wrong. I look at what people do with the scientific method and then make up my mind. And in this case, I strongly agree with Deborah. Yes, it's fun to explore what personality types the people on this list are. It's fun to see what the poll results are. It is wildly inappropriate to extrapolate these results to unschoolers across the country because of this self-selected bias. The best example I know of self-selected bias is unemployment figures. When I was looking for a job, the unemployment rate reported by the American Chemical Society based on a survey of its members (who weren't called just mailed in a form) was approximately 2%. Nati ----- Original Message -----
From: Tim and Maureen
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re: Scientific Method" & Heisenburg Principle - WAS New poll for Unschooling-dotcom
Deborah,
I found your remarks weighted toward discounting the exploration process I see in this list. I found them to be based upon all that scientific "discussion" I heard over and over in university. I don't want anyone reading your remarks to stop exploring because 1) they have to consider it scientific to be worthy 2) they have to avoid drawing false conclusions at all times. In my experience, when science enters into personal exploration the work stops. If this discussion was about astrology (which is very unscientific) and people were learning to be happy inside their own bodies/skin, then would you stop the discussion with comments of validity and reliability?
>And what did ANY of your examples have to do with drawing conclusions about
what kind of people are drawn to unschooling from answers to a poll given by 2%
or less of an email discussion list that is a self selected sample of
unschoolers to start with???
No, not one word, but you used the lexicon of science, "slightly more likely" which is probability. You used "just coincidence," which is "random and spurious." Then you cried the warning I heard throughout my schooling in research methods "Be careful about drawing conclusions from inadaquete data and unrepresentative samples." Data and Sampling are science words too. So lots of science in a few short sentences.
>I didn't say a word about scientific method or anyotherdamn thing.
I heard a loud PEEP in the tone of the mesage, i.e. that we SHOULD be careful and we SHOULD be more scientific. The power of the word SHOULD is legendary and I despise it's use. It halts exploration, (which I see happening for people as they try M-B on for size), because we should have clean clothes, perfect notes, and holded hands upon our desk.
>And I certainly said not one peep devaluing feeling.
Even the "sheesh"! That's clearly another SHOULD. "Tim SHOULDN'T rant." Ain't gonna change nothing! But I encourage the exploration of this further if you'd like! :O))
>Sheesh.
>Deborah
My thots
Tim T
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject line! ~~~~
If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll (fetteroll@...), or the list owner, Helen Hegener (HEM-Editor@...).
To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or address an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject line! ~~~~
If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll (fetteroll@...), or the list owner, Helen Hegener (HEM-Editor@...).
To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or address an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
Tim,
I'll just ask you to go back and read WHAT I ORIGINALLY WROTE because I'm
feeling pretty pissy about you reacting to me this way. I DIDN'T SAY ANY OF THIS.
YOU DID. If you want to run around having arguments with yourself, fine, but
leave me out of it, please. I am NOT responsible for your bad experiences in
university or with the medical profession, nor did the conversation have the
slightest to do with them.
I was adding to the discussion and exploration, not trying to stop it as you
accuse me. How is it exploration if only one possibility is explored? I added
several more to the mix. Gently. How does shouting me down accomplish fuller
exploration?
And no, the sheesh wasn't "Tim shouldn't rant". It was "why the hell are you
yelling at me?"
Deborah
Deborah,
I found your remarks weighted toward discounting the exploration process I see
in this list. I found them to be based upon all that scientific "discussion" I
heard over and over in university. I don't want anyone reading your remarks to
stop exploring because 1) they have to consider it scientific to be worthy 2)
they have to avoid drawing false conclusions at all times. In my experience,
when science enters into personal exploration the work stops. If this
discussion was about astrology (which is very unscientific) and people were
learning to be happy inside their own bodies/skin, then would you stop the
discussion with comments of validity and reliability?
2%
or less of an email discussion list that is a self selected sample of
unschoolers to start with???
No, not one word, but you used the lexicon of science, "slightly more likely"
which is probability. You used "just coincidence," which is "random and
spurious." Then you cried the warning I heard throughout my schooling in
research methods "Be careful about drawing conclusions from inadaquete data
and
unrepresentative samples." Data and Sampling are science words too. So lots
of science in a few short sentences.
and we SHOULD be more scientific. The power of the word SHOULD is legendary
and I despise it's use. It halts exploration, (which I see happening for
people as they try M-B on for size), because we should have clean clothes,
perfect notes, and holded hands upon our desk.
Ain't gonna change nothing! But I encourage the exploration of this further if
you'd like! :O))
Tim T
I'll just ask you to go back and read WHAT I ORIGINALLY WROTE because I'm
feeling pretty pissy about you reacting to me this way. I DIDN'T SAY ANY OF THIS.
YOU DID. If you want to run around having arguments with yourself, fine, but
leave me out of it, please. I am NOT responsible for your bad experiences in
university or with the medical profession, nor did the conversation have the
slightest to do with them.
I was adding to the discussion and exploration, not trying to stop it as you
accuse me. How is it exploration if only one possibility is explored? I added
several more to the mix. Gently. How does shouting me down accomplish fuller
exploration?
And no, the sheesh wasn't "Tim shouldn't rant". It was "why the hell are you
yelling at me?"
Deborah
Deborah,
I found your remarks weighted toward discounting the exploration process I see
in this list. I found them to be based upon all that scientific "discussion" I
heard over and over in university. I don't want anyone reading your remarks to
stop exploring because 1) they have to consider it scientific to be worthy 2)
they have to avoid drawing false conclusions at all times. In my experience,
when science enters into personal exploration the work stops. If this
discussion was about astrology (which is very unscientific) and people were
learning to be happy inside their own bodies/skin, then would you stop the
discussion with comments of validity and reliability?
>And what did ANY of your examples have to do with drawing conclusions aboutwhat kind of people are drawn to unschooling from answers to a poll given by
2%
or less of an email discussion list that is a self selected sample of
unschoolers to start with???
No, not one word, but you used the lexicon of science, "slightly more likely"
which is probability. You used "just coincidence," which is "random and
spurious." Then you cried the warning I heard throughout my schooling in
research methods "Be careful about drawing conclusions from inadaquete data
and
unrepresentative samples." Data and Sampling are science words too. So lots
of science in a few short sentences.
>I didn't say a word about scientific method or anyotherdamn thing.I heard a loud PEEP in the tone of the mesage, i.e. that we SHOULD be careful
and we SHOULD be more scientific. The power of the word SHOULD is legendary
and I despise it's use. It halts exploration, (which I see happening for
people as they try M-B on for size), because we should have clean clothes,
perfect notes, and holded hands upon our desk.
>And I certainly said not one peep devaluing feeling.Even the "sheesh"! That's clearly another SHOULD. "Tim SHOULDN'T rant."
Ain't gonna change nothing! But I encourage the exploration of this further if
you'd like! :O))
>Sheesh.My thots
>Deborah
Tim T
[email protected]
In a message dated 6/16/03 7:19:49 AM, tmthomas@... writes:
<< I found your remarks weighted toward discounting the exploration process I
see in this list. I found them to be based upon all that scientific
"discussion" I heard over and over in university. I don't want anyone reading your
remarks to stop exploring because 1) they have to consider it scientific to be
worthy 2) they have to avoid drawing false conclusions at all times. >>
I saw Deborah as reminding people not to get excited about such a small poll,
and not to make statements based on it. "WHY are so many unschoolers
orange?" isn't worth discussing if the basis for "orange" is a small voluntary poll.
<<"Be careful about drawing conclusions from inadaquete data and
unrepresentative samples." Data and Sampling are science words too. So lots of science
in a few short sentences.>>
But pretty valid stuff.
Are most unschoolers libertarians?
I've heard that.
Nobody is in much of a position to say most unschoolers are ANYthing, honestl
y.
<<I heard a loud PEEP in the tone of the mesage, i.e. that we SHOULD be
careful and we SHOULD be more scientific. >>
I didn't see it as a recommendation to be more scientific, just not to be
psuedo-scientific. Not to put any gloss of measurement on something that's just
a goof, like an online polling page.
<<Even the "sheesh"! That's clearly another SHOULD. "Tim SHOULDN'T rant."
Ain't gonna change nothing! But I encourage the exploration of this further if
you'd like! :O))
Just don't encourage scientific analysis of your rant.
Sandra
<< I found your remarks weighted toward discounting the exploration process I
see in this list. I found them to be based upon all that scientific
"discussion" I heard over and over in university. I don't want anyone reading your
remarks to stop exploring because 1) they have to consider it scientific to be
worthy 2) they have to avoid drawing false conclusions at all times. >>
I saw Deborah as reminding people not to get excited about such a small poll,
and not to make statements based on it. "WHY are so many unschoolers
orange?" isn't worth discussing if the basis for "orange" is a small voluntary poll.
<<"Be careful about drawing conclusions from inadaquete data and
unrepresentative samples." Data and Sampling are science words too. So lots of science
in a few short sentences.>>
But pretty valid stuff.
Are most unschoolers libertarians?
I've heard that.
Nobody is in much of a position to say most unschoolers are ANYthing, honestl
y.
<<I heard a loud PEEP in the tone of the mesage, i.e. that we SHOULD be
careful and we SHOULD be more scientific. >>
I didn't see it as a recommendation to be more scientific, just not to be
psuedo-scientific. Not to put any gloss of measurement on something that's just
a goof, like an online polling page.
<<Even the "sheesh"! That's clearly another SHOULD. "Tim SHOULDN'T rant."
Ain't gonna change nothing! But I encourage the exploration of this further if
you'd like! :O))
>>TIM! Rant away.
Just don't encourage scientific analysis of your rant.
Sandra
unolist
>World's Smallest Political Quiz
> Are most unschoolers libertarians?
> I've heard that.
> Sandra
http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html
>g< ang