If you reply to this long (11 kB) post please don't hit the reply button - bane of discussion lists - unless you prune the copy of this post that may appear in your reply down to a few relevant lines, otherwise the entire already archived post may be needlessly resent to subscribers.
Thus far (24 July 2011 18:40-0700) there have been 14 responses on the PhysLrnR archives at <http://bit.ly/rglCZt > to my post "Re: The world's biggest problem? Too many people" [Hake (2011)].
Here, as in the PhysLrnR post references below, to access the archives of PhysLnR one needs to subscribe :-(, but that takes only a few minutes by clicking on <http://bit.ly/nG318r> and then clicking on "Join or Leave PHYSLRNR-LIST." If you're busy, then subscribe using the "NOMAIL" option under "Miscellaneous." Then, as a subscriber, you may access the archives and/or post messages at any time, while receiving NO MAIL from the list!
The last response was by list manager Dewey Dykstra (2011) who, agreeing with three of the responders who thought the thread was "off topic" for PhysLrnR, wrote:
"Not to minimize the effect of population growth on our world in many ways, but PhysLrnR was not started and is not continued to host discussions off the topics of physics learning research, the data, the philosophy, the methods. . . . . . Thank you in advance for honoring the purposes of PhysLrnR by taking this sort of discussion to PHYS-L."
Dewey may not be aware of Art Hobson's Physoc discussion list dedicated to "Education about physics-related social topics" with archives at <http://bit.ly/dVm2AM>.
I hope Dewey will allow at least two parting-shot comments on this thread:
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1. THE SUBJECT OF HUMAN POPULATION GROWTH HAS EVIDENTLY NOT ALWAYS BEEN REGARDED AS "OFF TOPIC" FOR PHYSLRNR
b. Type "June 2011" " (without the quotes) into the "Until" slot (so as to exclude the July 2011 thread "Re: The world's biggest problem? Too many people."
c. Type "Bartlett" (without the quotes) into the "String" slot to obtain 60 hits.
d. Type "overpopulation" (without the quotes) into the "String" slot to obtain 53 hits.
e. Type "sustainable" (without the quotes) into the "String" slot to obtain 44 hits.
f. Type "Limits to Growth" (with the quotes) into the "String" slot to obtain 20 hits.
g. Type "Population Bomb" (with the quotes) into the "String" slot to obtain 5 hits.
2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222 2. SOME CARELESS READERS ATTRIBUTE COMMENTS BY HARTE & EHRLICH TO HAKE
My post "Re: The world's biggest problem? Too many people" [Hake (2011)] consisted almost entirely of an excerpt from a Los Angeles Times Op Ed of the same title by Mary Ellen Harte and Anne Ehrlich.
Nevertheless, some PhysLrnR's seem to attribute the comments of Harte & Ehrlich to me! For example:
a. CHRIS HORTON wrote: ". . . .when [Hake] makes a blatantly political and morally loaded assertion disguised as a scientific deduction, to let it go unchallenged is to allow it to take on at least the appearance of a consensus."
b. ZEEV WURMAN (2011) wrote [my inserts at ". . . . .[[insert]]. . . ."]: . . . Further, I would point out that by capitalizing terms like "PERPETUAL GROWTH IS THE CREED OF A CANCER CELL" in his original post . . . . [[Wurman deceptively fails to point out that the capitalized words are those of Harte & Ehrlich (2011), capitalized by me so as to emphasize the view of Harte & Ehrlich, with no implication whatsoever that I agreed with them]]. . . . ., prof. Hake engaged in demagoguery. . . .[[NONSENSE - Wurman is a master of the non sequitur]]. . . . Nobody, presumably including himself, believes that human growth will continue unabated forever. The real question is whether we will allow humanity to exercise the limits to its growth in a free and distributed manner as is happening in every society as it develops, or we will enforce it by some fascist system like China does. At least we now clearly know prof. Hake's preference on this matter.. . . .[[NONSENSE -Zeev Wurman continues the vacuous rhetoric of the traditionalist Math Warriors of HOLD - Palo Alto <http://bit.ly/qofqny> (of which he's evidently on the steering committee), HOLD -NYC <http://www.nychold.com/>, and "Mathematically Correct" <http://bit.ly/beOVtu> - see in this regard "The Math Wars" [Schoenfeld (2004)] who wrote: "Has anyone noticed that the more extreme members of Mathematically Correct have taken their strategy and tactics, almost line for line, straight out of the creation scientists' playbook?"]]. . . . . . . . . . . . .
c. John Clement (2011) wrote: "A common way of defending a paradigm is to personally attack the bringer of the message. . . . .[[witness Horton (2011) and Wurman (2011)]]. . . . I always consider such attacks to be a sign of irrationality. So while Richard Hake may have engaged in some purple prose, one cannot deduce that his concern automatically leads to objectionable solutions to problems. Name calling is persuasive, but not rational argumentation."
I wonder if John could indicate where, in my post Hake (2011), I "engaged in some purple prose." Could John be referring to passages that I quoted from Harte & Ehrlich (2011)?
"Education for sustainability must start in our classrooms. We have the obligation to work with the large numbers of students in our introductory classes, to lead them to explore the meaning of sustainability. . . . [[Dewey, is this not within the purview of PhysLrnR]]. . . ., even though sustainability is not now in our textbooks or curricula. . . . It may be that no other academic discipline is seriously or realistically concerned with education for sustainability. In which case, it's up to us (physicists)." - Al Bartlett <http://www.albartlett.org/>
REFERENCES [All URL's accessed on 24 July 2011; some shortened by <http://bit.ly/>.]
Dykstra, D. 2011. "Re: The world's biggest problem? Too many people," PhysLrnR post of 24 Jul 2011 13:49:51-0600; online at <http://bit.ly/omO0Qv>. Here, as in the other PhysLrnR post references below, to access the archives of PhysLnR one needs to subscribe :-(, but that takes only a few minutes by clicking on <http://bit.ly/nG318r> and then clicking on "Join or Leave PHYSLRNR-LIST." If you're busy, then subscribe using the "NOMAIL" option under "Miscellaneous." Then, as a subscriber, you may access the archives and/or post messages at any time, while receiving NO MAIL from the list!
Hake, R.R. 2011. "Re: The world's biggest problem? Too many people,"online on the OPEN! Math-Teach archives at <http://bit.ly/pNuO2U>. Post of 23 July 23, 2:01 PM (the MathForum fails to indicate the time zone. Shamelessly cross-posted to AP-Physics, Biopi-L, Chemed-L, Physhare, Phys-L, Physoc, MathEdCC, Math-Learn, Math-Talk, & Natural Math.
Harte, M.E. & and A. Ehrlich. 2011. "The world's biggest problem? Too many people: Our unsustainable population levels are depleting resources and denying a decent future to our descendants. We must stop the denial." Los Angeles Times OpEd, 21 July 2011; online at <http://lat.ms/p4rOFa>.
Horton, C. 2011. "Re: The world's biggest problem? Too many people," PhysLrnR post of 23 Jul 2011 14:52:55-0700; online at <http://bit.ly/pn5z88>.
Schoenfeld, A. H. 2004. "The Math Wars," Educational Policy 18(1): 253-286; online as a 160 kB pdf at <http://bit.ly/pgReV8>(160 kB).
Wurman, Z. 2011. "Re: The world's biggest problem? Too many people," PhysLrnR post of 24 Jul 2011 10:09:21+0000; online at <http://bit.ly/rdI5IS>.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]