Anglicans exclude the US Episcopalians over gay bishops

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Pupils do that in all sorts of schools (they certainly are encouraged to do that in the one my kids go to and there are 'curriculum enhancement days' set aside to provide tome) whether or not the school has a 'business ethos' - indeed I'm not sure I can think of a school that describes itself as having a 'business ethos'.

My school certainly doesn't consider itself to have a 'business ethos' - whatever that means.

Consett Academy.

[ProfessorDavey]

Consett Academy.

Really

http://www.consett-academy.org.uk/13/principles-vision-values

In which case I would have expected them to mentioned their 'business ethos' in their statement of principles, vision and values, yet not a mention of 'business'. Seems their core principles are 'Inclusion, Progression and Excellence'.

Try again Vlad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Really

http://www.consett-academy.org.uk/13/principles-vision-values

In which case I would have expected them to mentioned their 'business ethos' in their statement of principles, vision and values, yet not a mention of 'business'. Seems their core principles are 'Inclusion, Progression and Excellence'.

Try again Vlad.

Sorry, I have the document details on my Ipad where they talk about the sponsors commitment to the business ethos.

In terms of school ethos you might find link this interesting.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/creating-a-military-ethos-in-academies-and-free-schools

Any secularist therefore truly wanting a level playing field then should not baulk at a religious ethos.

[Outrider]

In terms of school ethos you might find link this interesting.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/creating-a-military-ethos-in-academies-and-free-schools

Any secularist therefore truly wanting a level playing field then should not baulk at a religious ethos.

Why? Secularism is about not priveleging one particular religious viewpoint, it has nothing to say about militarism, or the virtues of military discipline and methods within education. That's not to say it's not a valid topic for discussion, I'm just curious as to how you think it fits with secularism?

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Sorry, I have the document details on my Ipad where they talk about the sponsors commitment to the business ethos.

Well I think we would all rather prefer to rely on the public statement of the ethos of a school which is on its official website, rather than a 'document on your iPad'.

In terms of school ethos you might find link this interesting.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/creating-a-military-ethos-in-academies-and-free-schools

Any secularist therefore truly wanting a level playing field then should not baulk at a religious ethos.

Three years out of date - widely derided when released and, I believe, quietly dropped.

But even were this to happen it would in now way be equivalent to a faith school. To be so the school would need to be formally run by the military but funded but the state (there is no suggestion of this), would likely require the head and other senior staff to be members of the military (no suggestion of that), to narrow the relevant curriculum only to cover the military (no suggestion of that), to restrict and prioritise admissions to children of the military (no suggestion of that) and to have remit to ensure that children are brought up to be in the military as adults (no suggestion of that), to have lessons in genuine military practice - such as operating firearms and weapons (no suggestions of that).

In reality the notion of a 'military ethos' in this context is merely publicity seeking and actually really means a level of struck discipline and confidence, plus also a notion that ex military personnel may be able to reskill to enter education.

It is really no different to the well established programmes where football teams become involved in educational activities, but again they aren't running state schools.

So, as ever Vlad, wrong again - try harder next time.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

In an education setting ethos is part of the content. It is the extracurricular part of the education but it can also be part of the curriculum. Pupils in a school with a business ethos will be encourage to run and operate business units within that school and may well put aside special days for that.

Still not getting it then. You can educate children according your own ethos; you cannot though educate children according to your own facts - unless that is you're religious.

[Hope]

Still not getting it then. You can educate children according your own ethos; you cannot though educate children according to your own facts - unless that is you're religious.

Science and scientists make a pretty good effort at teaching its own 'facts', bhs - or at least they did in all the schools I studied and taught at.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Science and scientists make a pretty good effort at teaching its own 'facts', bhs - or at least they did in all the schools I studied and taught at.

Quite. Now see whether you can work out the difference between a fact in science and a fact in religion.

[Owlswing]

Hope,

Quite. Now see whether you can work out the difference between a fact in science and a fact in religion.

Oh! That one is simple - a fact in science is a FACT; a fact in religion is a fiction sometimes put forward as a fact instead of as an item of faith.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Owls,

Oh! That one is simple - a fact in science is a FACT; a fact in religion is a fiction sometimes put forward as a fact instead of as an item of faith.

Dammit man, you've ruined it! Were you the kind of kid who shouted "it's up your sleeve" when the magician made the rabbit disappear?

Oh well. Hope - can you see where you went wrong now?

[SusanDoris]

Owls,

Dammit man, you've ruined it! Were you the kind of kid who shouted "it's up your sleeve" when the magician made the rabbit disappear?

Oh well. Hope - can you see where you went wrong now?

I'm afraid even this incurable optimist  has to be pessimistic about that!

[ProfessorDavey]

Science and scientists make a pretty good effort at teaching its own 'facts', bhs - or at least they did in all the schools I studied and taught at.

Facts are concepts etc that are based on very strong evidence, and science (and scientists) is in the business of basing their theories etc on strong evidence so if science suggests something as fact (not that they are likely to use that term) then you can be pretty confident that is what it is.

That is a world away from 'opinion' which is typically not based on strong evidence but may be a subjective view or an assertion yet to be proven to stand up to evidential scrutiny.

So if a scientist says that the earth rotates around the sun once every 365 days (within a margin of error) that is based on evidence and it is reasonable to describe it as a fact.

If a theologian (or RE teacher) say that Jesus was resurrected that is not based on any credible evidence and it would be completely inappropriate to describe that as a fact. An opinion, a belief fine, but not a fact.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well I think we would all rather prefer to rely on the public statement of the ethos of a school which is on its official website, rather than a 'document on your iPad'.
Three years out of date - widely derided when released and, I believe, quietly dropped.

But even were this to happen it would in now way be equivalent to a faith school. To be so the school would need to be formally run by the military but funded but the state (there is no suggestion of this), would likely require the head and other senior staff to be members of the military (no suggestion of that), to narrow the relevant curriculum only to cover the military (no suggestion of that), to restrict and prioritise admissions to children of the military (no suggestion of that) and to have remit to ensure that children are brought up to be in the military as adults (no suggestion of that), to have lessons in genuine military practice - such as operating firearms and weapons (no suggestions of that).

In reality the notion of a 'military ethos' in this context is merely publicity seeking and actually really means a level of struck discipline and confidence, plus also a notion that ex military personnel may be able to reskill to enter education.

It is really no different to the well established programmes where football teams become involved in educational activities, but again they aren't running state schools.

So, as ever Vlad, wrong again - try harder next time.

Oh dear I suppose I will just have to console myself with the FACT of hundreds of church sponsored schools with a Christian ethos.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why? Secularism is about not priveleging one particular religious viewpoint, it has nothing to say about militarism, or the virtues of military discipline and methods within education. That's not to say it's not a valid topic for discussion, I'm just curious as to how you think it fits with secularism?

O.

Yes but it's all special pleading that a religious ethos is somehow different from other ethoses.

[Owlswing]

Yes but it's all special pleading that a religious ethos is somehow different from other ethoses.

Because those with a military ethos do NOT try, blatantly, to browbeat and threaten people into becoming militarists.

They don't tell prople that they will go to Hell and into the Hellfire if the disobey military rules, the glasshouse, maybe, but not Hellfire.

[Outrider]

Yes but it's all special pleading that a religious ethos is somehow different from other ethoses.

No, accepting or rejecting a military influence in schools would be done on its own merits. Secularism is the position that, in the absence of any way to validate any religious claim, they can't be taken on their merits - individual liberty suggests that people are free to follow them if they choose, but it's not for the state to enforce them on someone else, or be party to that being done.

It's not that militarism doesn't get judged on its own merits, it's that religion has already been judged on the merits it doesn't have.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Oh dear I suppose I will just have to console myself with the FACT of hundreds of church sponsored schools with a Christian ethos.

Currently ...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

Yes but it's all special pleading that a religious ethos is somehow different from other ethoses.

Write this down 100 times until it sinks in:

Ethos and facts are not the same thing

Ethos and facts are not the same thing

Ethos and fa...

Lots of special interest groups can teach in line with an ethos; only the religious can teach their own facts.

[Hope]

Hope,

Quite. Now see whether you can work out the difference between a fact in science and a fact in religion.

One is based on human experience, the other is based on ... human experience.

[Shaker]

One is based on human experience, the other is based on ... human experience.

Everything we can conceive of, know we can't conceive of or can talk about is by definition based on human experience so that really isn't saying very much. Now try the really important difference.

[ProfessorDavey]

One is based on human experience, the other is based on ... human experience.

Nope - one is based on objective and repeatable evidence.

The other is a subjective opinion that doesn't stand up to objective testing. Nothing wrong with opinions, provided they are recognised as such and not confused with facts.

[Hope]

Nope - one is based on objective and repeatable evidence.

Which i, necessarily based on human experience - unless you know of a non-human scientist.

The other is a subjective opinion that doesn't stand up to objective testing. Nothing wrong with opinions, provided they are recognised as such and not confused with facts.

I'm not suggesting that science and scientific detail isn't valuable and important, but it is still something that we have no 'external' corroboration of; it is all moderated by human experience.

[ProfessorDavey]

Which i, necessarily based on human experience - unless you know of a non-human scientist.

I am talking about science not scientists - there are plenty of examples where the objective and repeatable evidence that is the basis of scientific 'facts' are generated through non human analysis. Indeed in most cases measurement devices that aren't subject to the vagaries of human subjectivity are much preferred in the generation of data.

I'm not suggesting that science and scientific detail isn't valuable and important, but it is still something that we have no 'external' corroboration of; it is all moderated by human experience.

No they aren't - see above.

Scientific 'facts' were facts well before humans evolved (even though we might not have been present to recognise them as so) and they will remain so long after we are gone. That the earth moved around the sun every (give or take) 365 days was just as much fact millions of years ago, prior to humans evolving and if all humans suddenly vanished tomorrow that 'fact' would remain.

I don't think you really understand the difference between objective and subjective evidence Hope.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

One is based on human experience, the other is based on ... human experience.

Doesn't help you: one provides its facts based on objective data with a method to test them; the other provides facts based on its opinions.

It's simple enough isn't it?

[wigginhall]

Which i, necessarily based on human experience - unless you know of a non-human scientist.
I'm not suggesting that science and scientific detail isn't valuable and important, but it is still something that we have no 'external' corroboration of; it is all moderated by human experience.

Well, you are getting close to nihilism, i.e. that all experiences are equal.   This is clearly not correct.   For example, you could cite alien abduction, and you could cite the theory of gravity.   Which one would you find useful if you were on the space station and wanted to return to earth?