Reply to: Michael Gove to double spending per pupil in state schools

[d000hg]

You don't say if it's a faith-backed school, but regular state schools are often fund raising too. Mrs d000hg's school is always selling cakes and DVDs of school productions, etc.

You are in the south though right, in a well-heeled middle-class catchment?

[mudskipper]

There are lots of good schools which are "religious" although in reality this is only lip-service in the vast majority of cases. RC schools can require a certain proportion of RC teachers but that merely means you need to have been confirmed, which means little in itself. I went to a "Methodist School" but really it was a totally normal school except we had Chapel on a Friday... which to many older people is a totally typical school experience anyway. AS for the expectation to pay... not something that's well known in any of the schools my wife has taught at. Maybe in snobby middle-class southern areas where pushy parents are fighting to bribe their way into the best schools?You're saying only a small proportion of schools are much better than average? Well there's a shock for statistics fans.

I have a £10/month DD to ms#5's school as, I believe, do many other parents. You're 'reminded' continually until you set one up. Plus large donations at various point for various things - the most notable being several hundred quid towards the refectory building (from where, it seems, he can purchase limitless chocolate).

[d000hg]

As stated most of those are religious schools where the expectation is unsaid but well known. Cough up some money for the fund.

There are lots of good schools which are "religious" although in reality this is only lip-service in the vast majority of cases. RC schools can require a certain proportion of RC teachers but that merely means you need to have been confirmed, which means little in itself. I went to a "Methodist School" but really it was a totally normal school except we had Chapel on a Friday... which to many older people is a totally typical school experience anyway. AS for the expectation to pay... not something that's well known in any of the schools my wife has taught at. Maybe in snobby middle-class southern areas where pushy parents are fighting to bribe their way into the best schools?

There are very few non-religious state schools that are good. However when there are some, the reality is they are the exception to the norm.

You're saying only a small proportion of schools are much better than average? Well there's a shock for statistics fans.

You'd think I'd have a vested interest in showing schools run by Christians are better but I think this is only a self-fulfilling cycle if it's true at all... people think the school is better so there is more competition for places, and it is more desirable for staff. Good staff and kids/parents who give a hoot about their education are a match made in Heaven (excuse the pun).

[LazyFan]

OK so why are some state schools very good (I do not include grammar schools in this)?

As stated most of those are religious schools where the expectation is unsaid but well known. Cough up some money for the fund. There are very few non-religious state schools that are good. However when there are some, the reality is they are the exception to the norm.

So, how do they create this exception? Well they can have some discrete advantages. Such as new school building paid for as a one off, extra local funds from some scheme that is not always available to most schools, some Business charity help, other handouts which are one offs. And sometimes they just have the best teachers. But not all schools can have super teachers. Just like the best footballers they are few and far between. But you can at least expect League One level footy, where there are some at least competent players.

The reality is the number one differing factor is class sizes. Its much easier to take on half the work load or as the state teachers see it less than double!
It is not hard to work out really is it?

[d000hg]

don't talk about logic?

Non sequitur.

[doodab]

The first law of logic is...?

don't talk about logic?

[d000hg]

The first law of logic is...?

[pjclarke]

The most fundamental pillars would be the laws of logic, which I doubt some of you even know what they are.

Another person who has no idea what the laws of logic are.

If you understood why man needs morality, and after that what it is, then I would be able to answer your question in a way that you understand.
You don't, so I can't.

What would be the point in arguing according to moral principles which you don't understand?

If you subtract all the letters in 'masonryan' that also appear in 'SpontaneousOrder' you're left with 'my'.

My troll? My Sockie?

[d000hg]

I'm correct.

If you say so - actually not because that's the crux, it is merely your say so which is utterly worthless as we don't know who you are or how you came to that position.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Haven't you already done the logic argument before?

http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...st-nutjob.html

Yup. I alluded to the fact in my very first post on the topic (of rights) in this thread, and suggested where someone *could* look for any further reading on which my explanation was based, if they so wished.

They so wished not

[doodab]

Is logic not science then? How does one apply the scientific method without logic?

No, it's logic. It's employed by science, as is mathematics, but it isn't science. It's also employed by mathematics, philosophy and law, none of which are science either.

[pjclarke]

It's not a science.

Indeed, and a bold declaration that the answer is 'Yes and I am correct' is profoundly antiscientific. Mathematics deals in absolute proofs, science is more usually about the balance of evidence. A scientist would say the answer is 'Yes' with a confidence of 98%, and here are my workings. Seems to me SO is attempting to position ethics more as a branch of mathematical logic, rather than a natural science. As if you could program a 'Deep Ethics' computer with all the variables and parameters, pose a moral question and get the 'correct' answer according to strictly validated moral principles, and eliminate all that silly subjectivity and emotion.

But who writes the code?

"Ok. *explains from first principles -yawn-* See?"

But you didn't, did you? Any more than you provided evidence that objectivity is 'mainstream', (sorry novel sales don't do it for me, and the Tea Party - Really?).

Instead you climbed up on the high horse and told me what I do and do not understand., and seemingly adopted the position that your subjective morality is actually objective.

This meeting of the 6th Form debating society is closed.

[DirtyDog]

Is logic not science then? How does one apply the scientific method without logic?

Haven't you already done the logic argument before?

http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...st-nutjob.html

[SpontaneousOrder]

No it isn't. Science may have it's roots in (natural) philosophy, but it became science a long time ago and what it left behind is everything that isn't science.

Is logic not science then? How does one apply the scientific method without logic?

[SpontaneousOrder]

You proposed that Objectivism had been mainstream for 70 years. Perhaps you'd care to provide some evidence to support the proposition? A literature search, position statements by academic philosophers, that kind of thing?

Whether something is mainstream or not, without an agreed benchmark, is a subjective evaluation. You're free to disagree with me - there's no need to get your knickers in a twist. It's not even part of any argument I'm making; just a passing comment (argumentum ad populum would be a logical fallacy here of course).

I personally regard 30 million book sales to date, 3 tulipty films and a few decent ones, plus cult icon status amongst the misguided Tea party movement in the states as enough to be considered 'mainstream'.

What was the point of this tangent again?

Thanks for an admirably prompt and clear answer to the question. Now, what differentiates that answer, presumably arrived at by the application of wholely and objectively valid moral principles, from your subjective opinion?

In other words, how do you know?

If you understood why man needs morality, and after that what it is, then I would be able to answer your question in a way that you understand.
You don't, so I can't.

What would be the point in arguing according to moral principles which you don't understand?


"Morality is objectively valid"
"No it's not - tell me how you arrive at the conclusion that abortion is morally legit"
"Ok. *explains from first principles -yawn-* See?"
"No - my morality is different to yours - your explanation only makes sense if you suppose that your morality is true, objectively speaking"
"Er.. yes. That's the point "