The Misunderstood History Of Flat Earth Theories

The Misunderstood History Of Flat Earth Theories

Being call a flat Earth, for most people, insulting. Flat Earth is not only a false notion, it’s also a model for wrongness. This is because most people who are call flat Earthers don’t believe the Earth is flat. Flat Earther, simply scientifically season variant of idiot.

Recent example: US President Barack Obama expressed frustration with climate change denier’s persistent objections by saying, We don’t have the time for a meeting at the Flat Earth Society.

The real Flat Earth Society released a statement supporting the hypothesis of anthropogenic global climate change in a move one could either read as very lucky or very unfortunate.

How do we respond when someone believes that the Earth is flat? This was the question B.o.B, an American rapper, recently asked. It seems that the usual route is block. It’s hard to insult someone using a term they happily use.

The Edge Of The World Earth

What exactly is the flat Earth theory? There has never been a flat Earth theory. Different cultures have presented a wide range of worldviews at different times. This makes it difficult to sum up the idea of a flat Earth theory as only the West has one.

Even a cursory historical overview will show that the notion that the Earth flat was share by a wide variety of cultures, and linked to vastly different metaphysical systems.

It was common belief in ancient Greece as well as India, China, and a wide variety of indigenous or pre-state cultures. Homer and Hesiod both described a flat Earth. Thales, who was consider to be one of the first philosophers, Lucretius (avowed materialist) and Democritus (founder of atomic theory), maintained this view.

The ancient Greek concept has many parallels to that of Mesopotamian and early Egyptian thought. Both believe that the Earth was a huge disc that was enclose by a massive body of water. Although the Earther was flat to the ancient Chinese, they were almost unanimous in their belief. However, in this system the heavens and Earther were spherical.

Jainism, Buddhism, And Hinduism

Many ancient Indian concepts, which are similar to Jainism, Buddhism, and Hinduism, link their cosmography with botanical images. The earther is made up of four continents that surround a mountain. This is analogous to how petals surround a flower’s bud. Ancient Norse thought suggested a flat, circular Earther that was surrounded by a sea and inhabited by a giant snake.

Others, such as the Mountain Arapesh of Papua New Guinea see a world that ends at the horizon. This is the point where the giant clouds congregate. Even though there are commonalities across these traditions and many different metaphysical or cosmological narratives, the stakes are high.

To make matters worse, we have to add intellectual traditions and cultures to this mix. For them, the shape of Earth is irrelevant. For example, many pre-state or tribal societies don’t care about cosmography.

All The Way Down Turtles Earth

The theory of a flat Earther started to lose popularity around the 6th century BCE. The idea of a spherical earth is now commonplace among educated people, by the time we reach Aristotle in 4th century BCE. It is now a well-known fact by the 1st century BCE. The theory of a flat Earther is still a minor thought tradition, just like a few theories in science such as Lamarckianism or vitalism.

Despite historical trends having long change, the 20th century saw establishment of the Flat Earth Society. It was founded in 1956 by Samuel Shenton. Charles K. Johnson, a retired mechanic for aircraft, continued his work in 1972.

School Principal One Of The Most Dangerous Jobs

School Principal One Of The Most Dangerous Jobs

Miner, commercial fisherman and firefighter. School principal. Would you have chosen to place your school’s head among such dangerous occupations? Most likely, you wouldn’t. A survey this week shows that school leaders are in serious trouble. These findings should be a wake-up call for policymakers, education department heads, and all those who support and educate our school principals.

Principals struggle to fulfill the demands of their job due to increasing demands, lack of time, and little support. Stress affects principals at a rate that is 1.7 times greater than the general population. Things are getting worse. The findings show that school leaders were twice as likely to think of self-harming and have poor quality-of life concerns than in previous years.

According to the survey, 41% of principals had received threats of violence on the job within the last year. This was mostly from their parents. More than a third of principals have been subject to physical violence, mostly from their students.

What Is The Secret To Our Success Principal?

According to a report by the US, the principal’s job has been overload over the past decade. Schools are being ask to address many of the problems facing society.

Schools are being scrutinized and denigrated based on their test scores in a country where the income gap is increasing and the achievement gap is still quite large. Innovative curricula and inspiring classrooms are being replaced by test preparation.

This hyper-accountability is combined with the despair of generational unemployment in certain communities, as well as the effects of parents passing academic responsibilities onto their children’s schools, and principals face a Sisyphean task.

What Are The Principal Options?

Stop asking schools for everything to fix society. Schools reflect the society’s problems for better or worse. In recent years, the principals have taken on the majority of the responsibility to address social, academic and societal pressures within the limit hours that are left for learning.

Schools must be caring from the beginning to the end. They should be open to misbehaviour and be willing to help students. Schools must be support and allow to fulfill their core mission of learning centres.

Integrating Services For Families Can Fix Society

Family members who are under stress can be best serve by both the public and private sectors in an integrate manner. This done by the Family Action Centre, and other similar resources, as well as places like Broadmeadow Primary School in Melbourne.

Enhance principal preparation programs and professional growth. Many school leadership programs integrate theory and practice well.

These programs must prepare school leaders for the serious threats and challenges they face each day. The talents of a principal are more important than ever in 2016. They can address the mental health of teachers and families, manage conflict in the classroom, create engaging lessons in the classroom, and ensure that students reach their full potential.

Reduce Excessive Drug Or Alcohol Use

The cost of buying drug ice in some areas of Australia can be lower than buying a pint or bottled water. School behaviours reflect the behavior at home. Many families in Australia suffer from the effects of drug and alcohol abuse, which can lead to bullying and violence. This epidemic requires that policymakers double down on prevention and treatment and offer in-school support.

Change The Way Principal Teach

New models of schooling are being develop in Australia and around the globe. They focus on the learner and their families, as well as learning. The Big Picture School concept places student passions at the forefront, while the AVID program targets students who are not able to achieve their academic potential. There is also the Early College High School movement in the USA, which allows students with limited resources to attend university.

The solution to school violence and stress may lie in reversing the 20th century schooling model. This latest survey calls for policymakers to take action. If the response is not comprehensive, we will still find little change in our schools and principals. To create healthy learning environments for all children, we must change the way that schools, principals and community members are view and support.

Balance The Evidence Not The Opinions On Climate Change

Balance The Evidence Not The Opinions On Climate Change

Why insist on balance when discussing climate change but completely ignore the other side on other issues? Societies depend on frames in order to understand and conduct conversations. The Western democracies have a common frame called balance which is the belief that all sides are entitle to an equal voice and that solutions can be found by considering their needs and demands. This notion assumes that all sides have a fairly symmetrical right to be heard. It has a lot of merit.

The introduction of GST in Australia was a landmark moment in Australian politics. After much parliamentary laughter, including the inserting of thermometers into chickens’ chooks by the parliamentarians, a compromise was reached. Foods were exempted from the GST and this allowed for the balance between the original plan of omnibus taxes and the need to control basic living costs.

Sometimes, it is a good thing to resist such balance. However, balance is just one of many conversational terms in society. Sometimes, the notion of a symmetric entitlement to opinions is absurd. In these cases, an alternative frame is use which gives strong preference for one side over another and it is good. For example, few would suggest that law enforcement’s needs and opinions should be balance with those of organized crime.

Tax Revenues Climate

The police and judiciary are legally entitle to tax revenues. There is no balance in public spending for crime lords and Godfathers. When invoking the law to protect rackets and bribery, no one would be call extremist. Tragedies can occur when society misunderstands the applicability of these two frames. Imagine the impact on a country if the head of the national broadcaster accuses the courts and police of groupthink and suggests that the judiciary should give more weight to the Consigliere’s paralegal writings.

Imagine a country where the leader of one major party calls the law crap but meets with one of Godfathers for a private conversation. These aren’t just frightening thoughts. These are frightening realities that have engulfed Australia. Several segments of society and media have lost control over which conversational frame is appropriate for the most important scientific and ethical problem humanity has ever encountered: climate change.

Climate science can only be view as a balance if it is base on evidence and not opinions or personal interests. Just as the verdicts of courts should prevail over the protestations made by organised crime, so must peer-reviewed literature prevail over internet cacophony and the opinions of think tank members. Unfortunately, science has become balanced by noise that can be disprove in just a few mouse clicks https://107.152.46.170/togel-online/data-result/taipei-pools/.

Considered Balance

Cardinal Pell was recently confront by this ill-considered balance when he taught Dr. Ayers (Head of the Bureau of Meteorology) a lesson in science. Thumping an especially egregious piece fiction written by someone with no relevant peer reviewed publications, but multiple directorships of mining companies, the Cardinal called Dr. Ayers’s testimony before the Senate unscientific.

It is not scientific because Dr. Ayers used peer-reviewed literature to arrive at his conclusion that the Earth is warming due to human CO2 emission. This incident demonstrates that cardinals in modern Catholicism have the freedom to ignore the Holy See’s opinions. However, it places Australia in an uncomfortable proximity to the Land of Topsy-Turvy which is one of Enid Bluyton’s children’s universes.

It will be remember that Topsy Turvy land was all about down and up. It was great fun. It’s not fun. But it is a tragedy when certain parts of society lose the distinction between evidence, noise, peer-review, internet memes, and science. It is a terrible thing when parties rely more on science than public labelling.

UQ research has shown that Australian politicians are more likely to be influence by scientists. Than any other source (e.g. cat palmistry). This ranges from 44% up to 98%. The Liberal party is the party that rejects science in the majority. While the Greens are the party that almost exclusively relies upon peer-reviewed science. However, the Greens easily label extremist and the Liberals are consider mainstream.