Funny (political, religious) pictures

I want to expand on this a little bit more (I had already done so, but the forum ate most of my post on mobile, grr).
So the article opens right up by saying, "Electricity is a mystery."

First of all, for a book that is supposed to be about informing and educating people (even those who are only at a 4th grade level -- ~9yrs old for non USAers) about electricity, it sure is quick to throw its hands in the air and shout, "We give up, we have no idea how it really works, where it comes from, how it's made, it's way too complicated, here are some guesses, whatever."

But second of all, the word choice here is key. The article says that electricity is "a mystery." There is specific religious meaning attached to the word "mystery," which is sometimes used interchangeably with "sacrament" and can be taken to mean "...a reality imbued with the hidden presence of God."* Try reading through the paragraph again, but this time substitute "[the] hidden presence of God" wherever you see the word "electricity" and it will take on an entirely different character, one where a "science" textbook essentially tries to tell you that the reason electrons move is [most likely] because God so wills it. It then finishes up with a Psalm quote chosen to basically drive home the idea that "Electricity = God."

This textbook is not designed for education, it is designed for indoctrination.

--Patrick
*see below
"The Church is a mystery. It is a reality imbued with the hidden presence of God. It lies hidden within the very nature of the Church to be always open to new and ever greater exploration." These words, stated by Pope Paul VI in his opening address to the second session of Vatican II, capture the very heart of one of the central documents of the Council: The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church.

source
Also it's not a mystery. We can observe and measure it. We can write simple equations to accurately predict how it will behave. Our entire modern world is built around knowing how electricity works
 
Also it's not a mystery. We can observe and measure it. We can write simple equations to accurately predict how it will behave. Our entire modern world is built around knowing how electricity works
Religious textbook: "Life itself is a chaotic mystery. Nobody has ever seen 'life' or captured it in a test tube. Nobody understands how it works."
Ravenpoe: "Actuarial science would like a word with you."

--Patrick
 
The argument being made here isn’t really about any fundamental truths regarding electromagnetic theory, it is about the choices of wording and presentation being made in what is ostensibly a grade-school science textbook.

—Patrick
That's literally my next paragraph.

but I'm not so sure everyone here is on board with it being stupid to say that seeing a bolt of lightning or a sparking tesla coil isn't functionally seeing electricity.
Yeah, that's what i was trying to say.

That's electricity as a broad term.

You guys where getting way into the actual details of how it actually works at the elementary particle levels, but imo that's a whole different thing. So i was disagreeing with fade that that's technically correct...
 
That's literally my next paragraph.
Like I said in my following post, that post was supposed to have a lot more detail in it, but it got eaten thanks to being on mobile and I had to wait until I got home to finish it.

Also your next paragraph looks like it is not about word choice (the literal words chosen to construct the textbook and how they are structured), but subject choice ("house" electricity as opposed to "physics" electricity).

--Patrick
 
("house" electricity as opposed to "physics" electricity).

--Patrick
Well, they're not that different, it's just about the level of detail of how the underlying phenomenon works.

And, as i've said before, in physics we'd be talking electromagnetism, and not electricity.

But i was talking more about the "ostensibly a grade-school science textbook." part. fade talking about the more complex science behind the sparky stuff is exactly what they're trying to do with the text... confusing the issue between the underlying physics, and the actual 4th grade level science of electrons moving around in a conductor to power your lights.
 
1641928775733.png


It comes from the movement of electrons.
The source of electricity is the movement of electrons.
Almost everything has electrons, so yes, it conceivably can be generated everywhere. Including shuffling your feet on a cold dry day, because, hey, you're transferring electrons. See? If you know where it comes from, the explanation for how it works becomes pretty simple.

We know considerably more about it than what they say "All anyone knows is"..They make it sound like you gotta summon that shit up with a ouiji board or something.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
You guys where getting way into the actual details of how it actually works at the elementary particle levels, but imo that's a whole different thing. So i was disagreeing with fade that that's technically correct...
The whole point is that "technically correct" is counter-productive when teaching nine year-olds! I've never disputed that there is a perspective in which you can't "see" electricity. However, that perspective is exploited by the textbook in order to present science as unable to understand electricity on a fundamental level.

EDIT: Sorry, misread @Li3n's post. Thought he said "agreeing with with fade".

The reason I was talking about particle level stuff was because Fade was talking about particle level stuff. I was trying to point out that if we can agree that it's pretty stupid to tell a kid "no one has ever seen a rock", that it's also stupid to say "no one has ever seen electricity", regardless of how much philosophical bullshit an author puts into the opening of a graduate level textbook in order to make it look like they're worth the $200 you're paying for it.
 
Last edited:

figmentPez

Staff member
We all pretending like lightning doesn't exist?
No, we're not. Apprently some people just think that seeing the light produced by a lightning bolt is not actually "seeing" electricity, and that's justification for praising propaganda meant to confuse children about the veracity of science.
 
I am imagining Roy Sullivan meeting up with the writer of the textbook and punching him in the face the same way "Buzz" Aldrin did to Bart Sibrel.
"You can't feel electricity..." >POW<

--Patrick
 
The whole point is that "technically correct" is counter-productive when teaching nine year-olds! I've never disputed that there is a perspective in which you can't "see" electricity. However, that perspective is exploited by the textbook in order to present science as unable to understand electricity on a fundamental level.

EDIT: Sorry, misread @Li3n's post. Thought he said "agreeing with with fade".

The reason I was talking about particle level stuff was because Fade was talking about particle level stuff. I was trying to point out that if we can agree that it's pretty stupid to tell a kid "no one has ever seen a rock", that it's also stupid to say "no one has ever seen electricity", regardless of how much philosophical bullshit an author puts into the opening of a graduate level textbook in order to make it look like they're worth the $200 you're paying for it.
Yeah, it's basically a bait and switch, where they try to equate the more simple concept of electricity as seen at the 4th grade level, with the more complex stuff going on with electromagnetism at an elementary particle level.


regardless of how much philosophical bullshit an author puts into the opening of a graduate level textbook in order to make it look like they're worth the $200 you're paying for it.
But i do have to point out that it's not anything "philosophical".

Electrons orbit the nucleus with nothing holding them together but their charge.

But their implication in that image skips a few steps between that and what comes out of your wall socket, to try to make a "point" which isn't actually accurate, technically or not.
 
Talking about if you can "see" electricity is philosophical pedantic.
FTFY. Generally in these types of discussions a few basic assumptions are made, mainly that we live in a universe with rules, we can trust our senses, and it's possible to know things. Because otherwise discussion becomes more or less pointless, see... half of what's been written in the past few pages of this thread.
 
FTFY. Generally in these types of discussions a few basic assumptions are made, mainly that we live in a universe with rules, we can trust our senses, and it's possible to know things. Because otherwise discussion becomes more or less pointless, see... half of what's been written in the past few pages of this thread.
:facepalm: Nah dude, that's the thing, what fade was on about is well accepted physics. The 4 fundamental forces are undeniable facts under the assumptions you stated. And they do keep stuff together without touching etc.

But my point was that even with that the 1st paragraph isn't actually correct, because electricity, especially for a 4th grader, is a more of a exact phenomenon (electrons moving around a conductor). While what he was talking about is more accurately described as electromagnetism (which is the ultimate reason behind electricity).

If we're going to go into that much detail for electricity, we might as well do that for a rock, which is also held together by electromagnetism (between atoms, and for the electrons in said atoms) and the strong force (the nucleus of the atoms) etc.

But if you replace their example of electricity with a rock, it becomes obvious why it doesn't work, regardless of the underlying physics.
 
May as well say: Two men are falling after jumping out of an airplane. The first turns his head and shouts "See, we both jumped and will both hit the ground!" The second shouts back "Yeah, but I have a parachute!" and pulls his rip cord.
 
Top