I recently have been very impressed that Grok ` understands the most basic physics of planetary temperature better than most " Climate Scientists " on both sides of the debacle : https://x.com/i/grok?conversation=1931797933218996540 .
You could be spending the rest of your life in expounding upon this. I most definitely do not envy you.
I had a large document that i submitted to the Nationsl Library of Congress on the topic of evaluating both real and relative performance gains among individuals and among cohorts. I had given up on statements/proofs/examples to the State school board. controlled newspapers, and congressional committees. I even had a full-fledged plan for replacing NCLB - a noble idea that was butchered by politicians and teacher unions. There are good definitions of "good" tests but no correct official definitions of relative knowledge or of genuine progress. (My metrics assume, however, that what is being taught is what should be being taught. I have always had a positive view of all the teachers I have had from K1 to a PhD.)
The metrics chosen by the politicians, however, are the differences in scores or passing percentages from year to year, but the test score scale is NOT a knowledge scale. It is a logarithmic scale, in which one standard deviation (SD) represents a knowledge ratio of about 2.2. A 99-percentile student (+3SD) knows eleven times as much (about the test material) as the median student. A 95-percentile student (+2 SD) knows five times as much.
If the year-to-year tests are made less difficult - which they automatically are if the teachers are teaching to the test - the administrators (and newspapers) will declare that knowledge "gaps" between any two chosen cohorts are decreasing. In fact, 30 years of testing across all States demonstrate that the gaps between the two major cohorts has NOT changed.
Furthermore, my chosen set of metrics give the same relative knowledge ratios for all tests on that subject matter. Other truths can also be established. Impoverished family backgrounds (Free Lunch) vs. No Free Lunch students have approximately the same gap as the gaps based on ethnic differences.
This will not change as long as a typical classroom has one teacher with an incoming set of students with knowledge spreads of four to six SD. (i.e., a four to 120 range of knowledge). Everyone is favored if from 4th grade forward., principals make class assignments (with generous overlap) of zero to 20-percentile, 20 to 80-percentile, and above 80-percentile. The lowest 20-percentile must be saved from permanent failure and the top 20-percentile must be given much greater challenges. Both the original 0-20 percentile and the original 80 to 100-percentile student will have shown great progress by K12. ... Bill Lynch, bandglynch@gmail.com
Excellent, John. People need to get beyond labels and trends, and spend some time with the substance of things. And people who DO KNOW the truth, need to take the risk and speak out, as you do. And have done.
Although my following is small, I try to stay on top of things within my reach, and pass it along. Here's my latest post (it DOES include references to the CO2 Coalition):
Richard: Thank you for the support. Considering that I am documenting some major societal issues that have garnered almost zero publicity, I'm surprised (and disappointed) that there are not more readers who appreciate the significance of commentaries like this.
> The National Academies of Sciences (NAS) was originally set up by Abraham Lincoln in 1863!
This is what we call “historical bias” - the older a thing, the more holier than thou it is portrayed. [Sure, no copyright, nobody will sue, a real cashflow fountain.] Our Founding Fathers, paragons of virtue, da Vinci, a real saint, Plato, the holy one, Socrates, oh, true sainthood. But our contemporaries? Conspiracy!
> The initial intentions were excellent: to provide objective, Science-based assistance to Americans.
We have no idea about the original intentions. The best we can say is that “they wrote…”, but was it true? Nope. According to Darwin, the Saint Darwin, obviously, survivors adapt, modify and change, and they will do whatever they can to win over others, up to and including changes in physical structure. Following Darwinian doctrine, now commonly considered a holy one, the present-day NAS is a very distant relative of the ancient ancestor - whose remains are yet to be found.
The best part, even if the above sentence is “true” (whatever it means) is that we have no clue what “science-based” meant for people in 1863. Maybe Santa Clause (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Santa_Claus_1863_Harpers.png). Or the Civil War still in progress, a very scientific process of deciding who is right and who is the unfortunate one. Or invading and submitting more Native tribes through the use of advanced science (gunpowder et al.). The Civil War was obviously the most important scientific study event, lasting for 5 years, with 600,000 up to 1 million people dead (depending on who counted). Some Substack authors attempt to compare it to the 2020-2025 Phase 2 clinical study…
What kind of assistance would it be to our own? Were those in power at that time representing vested interests the same as it is happening in the 21st century all over the world, with disregard to human life and abuse of science far beyond anything that happened in the past? Or were they saint and holy and only (genetic) mistakes were made? [Darwin]
The above are free-association reflections on isolated issues. The article as a whole is great and informative, thank you.
Dan: It's exhasperating how we as a society so easily get off track. Is it any wonder that progress on such major things as school reform is glacially so...Yes, Thank you for the last sentence.
Old Souls may seek deeper meanings and goodness as the primary aspect of life. What if… Our whole societal landscape has been hijacked by fake humans, body snatchers who only piggyback on the perceived image? It’s no secret that all societies, associations, groups, tribes and other forms of social hierarchy defend their positions against the young, the new waves of truly interested individuals who would love to explore the science (vs. follow the money).
The “elderly” know that they are about to be extinct in a few seconds. Having spent their lifetime on faking their own life, they are sincerely jealous of those young, innocent, who - maybe - have the potential to enjoy this Lifetime. If this enjoyment comes bundled with position, knowledge and well-earned prestige, oh, dear. How foolish they look like. They know it, they can see it in the mirror every day. So they take on the well-paid role of gatekeepers.
The best part is reserved for those who deliberately create false sciences, non-existent areas of knowledge, decoy directions. You can easily spot these ones by the amounts of funding, grants and (recently in vogue) pledges taken, obviously, from the public money. It’s an abyss for young minds, and the last frontier of decline for our future before it even begins.
Still, in the large plan, things are as they should be. Maybe this confusion serves the plan to streamline and optimize the minds of those who are truly the pathfinders of our future. They will need intuition, lie detection, integrity and other old-school features more than titles or knowledge.
Whatever is or will be happening, we will all arrive at the end line at the same time - exactly at our time, only with different burdens on our backs.
I had the PSSC physics curriculum in the early 1960s at Culver Military Academy .
I don't know how many schools used it , but I credit it in large part for my getting an 800 on the Physics SAT .
Now , close to 70 years later all high school physics curricula should , obviously , be even better .
Bob: There you go thinking logically again! Wake up to reality...
I recently have been very impressed that Grok ` understands the most basic physics of planetary temperature better than most " Climate Scientists " on both sides of the debacle : https://x.com/i/grok?conversation=1931797933218996540 .
Such a courageous counter, John.
You could be spending the rest of your life in expounding upon this. I most definitely do not envy you.
I had a large document that i submitted to the Nationsl Library of Congress on the topic of evaluating both real and relative performance gains among individuals and among cohorts. I had given up on statements/proofs/examples to the State school board. controlled newspapers, and congressional committees. I even had a full-fledged plan for replacing NCLB - a noble idea that was butchered by politicians and teacher unions. There are good definitions of "good" tests but no correct official definitions of relative knowledge or of genuine progress. (My metrics assume, however, that what is being taught is what should be being taught. I have always had a positive view of all the teachers I have had from K1 to a PhD.)
The metrics chosen by the politicians, however, are the differences in scores or passing percentages from year to year, but the test score scale is NOT a knowledge scale. It is a logarithmic scale, in which one standard deviation (SD) represents a knowledge ratio of about 2.2. A 99-percentile student (+3SD) knows eleven times as much (about the test material) as the median student. A 95-percentile student (+2 SD) knows five times as much.
If the year-to-year tests are made less difficult - which they automatically are if the teachers are teaching to the test - the administrators (and newspapers) will declare that knowledge "gaps" between any two chosen cohorts are decreasing. In fact, 30 years of testing across all States demonstrate that the gaps between the two major cohorts has NOT changed.
Furthermore, my chosen set of metrics give the same relative knowledge ratios for all tests on that subject matter. Other truths can also be established. Impoverished family backgrounds (Free Lunch) vs. No Free Lunch students have approximately the same gap as the gaps based on ethnic differences.
This will not change as long as a typical classroom has one teacher with an incoming set of students with knowledge spreads of four to six SD. (i.e., a four to 120 range of knowledge). Everyone is favored if from 4th grade forward., principals make class assignments (with generous overlap) of zero to 20-percentile, 20 to 80-percentile, and above 80-percentile. The lowest 20-percentile must be saved from permanent failure and the top 20-percentile must be given much greater challenges. Both the original 0-20 percentile and the original 80 to 100-percentile student will have shown great progress by K12. ... Bill Lynch, bandglynch@gmail.com
Excellent, John. People need to get beyond labels and trends, and spend some time with the substance of things. And people who DO KNOW the truth, need to take the risk and speak out, as you do. And have done.
Although my following is small, I try to stay on top of things within my reach, and pass it along. Here's my latest post (it DOES include references to the CO2 Coalition):
Climate Alarmism - Exposed - The Berean Watch
https://thebereanwatch.org/climate-alarmism-exposed/
Richard: Thank you for the support. Considering that I am documenting some major societal issues that have garnered almost zero publicity, I'm surprised (and disappointed) that there are not more readers who appreciate the significance of commentaries like this.
> The National Academies of Sciences (NAS) was originally set up by Abraham Lincoln in 1863!
This is what we call “historical bias” - the older a thing, the more holier than thou it is portrayed. [Sure, no copyright, nobody will sue, a real cashflow fountain.] Our Founding Fathers, paragons of virtue, da Vinci, a real saint, Plato, the holy one, Socrates, oh, true sainthood. But our contemporaries? Conspiracy!
> The initial intentions were excellent: to provide objective, Science-based assistance to Americans.
We have no idea about the original intentions. The best we can say is that “they wrote…”, but was it true? Nope. According to Darwin, the Saint Darwin, obviously, survivors adapt, modify and change, and they will do whatever they can to win over others, up to and including changes in physical structure. Following Darwinian doctrine, now commonly considered a holy one, the present-day NAS is a very distant relative of the ancient ancestor - whose remains are yet to be found.
The best part, even if the above sentence is “true” (whatever it means) is that we have no clue what “science-based” meant for people in 1863. Maybe Santa Clause (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Santa_Claus_1863_Harpers.png). Or the Civil War still in progress, a very scientific process of deciding who is right and who is the unfortunate one. Or invading and submitting more Native tribes through the use of advanced science (gunpowder et al.). The Civil War was obviously the most important scientific study event, lasting for 5 years, with 600,000 up to 1 million people dead (depending on who counted). Some Substack authors attempt to compare it to the 2020-2025 Phase 2 clinical study…
What kind of assistance would it be to our own? Were those in power at that time representing vested interests the same as it is happening in the 21st century all over the world, with disregard to human life and abuse of science far beyond anything that happened in the past? Or were they saint and holy and only (genetic) mistakes were made? [Darwin]
The above are free-association reflections on isolated issues. The article as a whole is great and informative, thank you.
Dan: I was simply reporting on the origins of NAS to give the situation some perspective.
I know, that's why my disclaimer that I am not referring to your viewpoint, and that I appreciate your work. Again, thank you.
Dan: It's exhasperating how we as a society so easily get off track. Is it any wonder that progress on such major things as school reform is glacially so...Yes, Thank you for the last sentence.
Old Souls may seek deeper meanings and goodness as the primary aspect of life. What if… Our whole societal landscape has been hijacked by fake humans, body snatchers who only piggyback on the perceived image? It’s no secret that all societies, associations, groups, tribes and other forms of social hierarchy defend their positions against the young, the new waves of truly interested individuals who would love to explore the science (vs. follow the money).
The “elderly” know that they are about to be extinct in a few seconds. Having spent their lifetime on faking their own life, they are sincerely jealous of those young, innocent, who - maybe - have the potential to enjoy this Lifetime. If this enjoyment comes bundled with position, knowledge and well-earned prestige, oh, dear. How foolish they look like. They know it, they can see it in the mirror every day. So they take on the well-paid role of gatekeepers.
The best part is reserved for those who deliberately create false sciences, non-existent areas of knowledge, decoy directions. You can easily spot these ones by the amounts of funding, grants and (recently in vogue) pledges taken, obviously, from the public money. It’s an abyss for young minds, and the last frontier of decline for our future before it even begins.
Still, in the large plan, things are as they should be. Maybe this confusion serves the plan to streamline and optimize the minds of those who are truly the pathfinders of our future. They will need intuition, lie detection, integrity and other old-school features more than titles or knowledge.
Whatever is or will be happening, we will all arrive at the end line at the same time - exactly at our time, only with different burdens on our backs.