Why do you think so many people are bad at maths?

[enwiabe]

Wasn't maths declared a national priority, i.e. lower HECS band

It would seems that many beleive Australia is in need in the mathematics area

ALL sciences have been put into the National Priority band (Band 0)

BWAHHAHAHA GLOCKY JUST ADMITTED THAT PSYCHOLOGY ISN'T A SCIENCE (it's still band 1).

[Glockmeister]

Wasn't maths declared a national priority, i.e. lower HECS band

It would seems that many beleive Australia is in need in the mathematics area

ALL sciences have been put into the National Priority band (Band 0)

BWAHHAHAHA GLOCKY JUST ADMITTED THAT PSYCHOLOGY ISN'T A SCIENCE (it's still band 1).

I knew someone would say that

that said BMS1021 is in Band 3 as well, and im pretty sure that's a science

[enwiabe]

That's an outlier. Most of the BMS units are band 0. NONE of the psych units are band 0.

[Glockmeister]

http://www.goingtouni.gov.au/Main/FeesLoansAndScholarships/Undergraduate/CommonwealthSupportForYourPlaceAndHECS-HELP/WhatYouPay.htm#T5

umm... according to this thing psychology is classified under 'behavioural sciences' (I'm guessing) which didn't move bands with science, hence it stayed in Band 1.

Vet Science is still in Band 3 though...

[enwiabe]

or it could be "other health" or "social studies"

[lukeperry91]

"Just a question: what have your experiences of living in China been like?"

I've never lived in England but I can say knowingly that murder is illegal there.

[lukeperry91]

""If something is either A or B, and we can't prove it to be A, it doesn't necessarily mean it is B.""

Learn to (lolol) speak English. If something is either black or white, and it isn't (implicit in your choosing of the word 'can't') black, then how is there any possible outcome where it is not white.

[ninwa]

"Just a question: what have your experiences of living in China been like?"

I've never lived in England but I can say knowingly that murder is illegal there.

An established law dating back hundreds of years, a simple fact which you can check with a single Google search, is completely different to "LOLOLOL YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING IN CHINA I KNOW THIS EVEN THOUGH I'VE NEVER LIVED THERE AND HAVE NO ACTUAL EXPERIENCE OF IT"

[zzdfa]

""If something is either A or B, and we can't prove it to be A, it doesn't necessarily mean it is B.""

Learn to (lolol) speak English. If something is either black or white, and it isn't (implicit in your choosing of the word 'can't') black, then how is there any possible outcome where it is not white.

learn to read.

And just in regard to ur English topic, ur right!! I am an apt student in english, but i find it strange why we spend time learning how to rite a speech on an issue, or idenifty the VOICE of a writer in language analysis etc, when so many students fail to proeprly use basic grammar, sophisticated language etc. I am not saying language anyslis etc is useless, but you would think, more emphasis was placed on grammar etc.

we do that in primary school, putting emphasis on grammar in vce would be like practising times tables in vce maths

[xXNovaxX]

""If something is either A or B, and we can't prove it to be A, it doesn't necessarily mean it is B.""

Learn to (lolol) speak English. If something is either black or white, and it isn't (implicit in your choosing of the word 'can't') black, then how is there any possible outcome where it is not white.

@ luke eprry, yes murder is illegal in china and australia, BUT IT STILL HAPPENS TO A LARGE SCALE relative to our population. Over the last 2 years havent u heard alll the accounts of TEENAGERS of 12- 14 years old being STABBED by knives? Even a harry potter star was stabbed a few months ago!!Not to sure about China's laws, btu surely murder is illegal there, and also, they don;t exactly have a culture of booze, drugs etc etc which tends to lead to murder, and violence as in many of our cites here. Culture plays a part as well.

[Toothpaste]

Too many claims without solid evidence to back them up.

[shinny]

""If something is either A or B, and we can't prove it to be A, it doesn't necessarily mean it is B.""

Learn to (lolol) speak English. If something is either black or white, and it isn't (implicit in your choosing of the word 'can't') black, then how is there any possible outcome where it is not white.

The key word there is PROVE. Just because we can't prove something doesn't mean it can't be true.

[NE2000]

Eg. Man-made global warming is either real or not real. If we can't prove man-made global warming to be real, it doesn't necessarily mean man-made global warming is not real.

[EvangelionZeta]

To people saying "justify freedom being self-evident", I direct you to Alan Gewirth's logical argument which proceeds as follows:

1) Every agent must regard freedom and well-being as necessary goods, as without them we cannot act – cannot be an agent – at all.

Logically, every agent then either

(2) must regard freedom and wellbeing as rights or

(3) must accept that others can curtail his or her freedom and wellbeing.

However, (3) would contradict (1) so therefore every agent must accept (2) to avoid a contradiction. Therefore consistency requires all agents to act to claim their own rights. But to claim rights necessarily entails accepting duties, so the agent must recognize rights for other people. Therefore, it must be concluded that to violate somebody’s rights to freedom and well-being involves the agent in selfcontradiction.

I think Gewirth's reasoning is incompatible with our current situation in that his definition of "freedom" - that is, the will to act independently - doesn't necessarily equate to laws in society.  Rather, I think it's only applicable to an individual level.

Perhaps it makes sense in terms of people.  Surely, we have the right to think for ourselves and to move in accordance to what our minds dictate.

However, on a social scale, the analogy simply doesn't make sense.  The key here is that it says both "freedom" AND "wellbeing".  Whilst it may be possible to equate rights to freedom, the logic doesn't entail that rights similarly are equivalent to well-being. 

If we were to have absolute freedom, we would be allowed to have murder, stealing, etc., without any sort of repercussions.  Hence Gewirth's "well-being" conclusion would in fact be a "stopper" of sorts - we need to find the level where there is a maximal point of both freedom and well being, without one interfering with another.  Too much freedom and not enough well-being, and possibly vice-versa (if we were to all be kept in jars but eternally fed and kept happy through drugs, we would have maximum well-being but minimal freedom?).

Hence at a political level, what has to be proved is that the rights China does not approve of are necessary - that is, with them we achieve a higher level of "well-being". 

[ninwa]

To people saying "justify freedom being self-evident", I direct you to Alan Gewirth's logical argument which proceeds as follows:

1) Every agent must regard freedom and well-being as necessary goods, as without them we cannot act – cannot be an agent – at all.

Logically, every agent then either

(2) must regard freedom and wellbeing as rights or

(3) must accept that others can curtail his or her freedom and wellbeing.

However, (3) would contradict (1) so therefore every agent must accept (2) to avoid a contradiction.

I disagree with that. There is no such thing as absolute freedom. My freedom is being curtailed every day by these things called laws that don't give me the freedom to steal, to kill, to marry several people at once. Gewirth's (implied) definition of freedom is unrealistically simplistic.


EDIT: sorry EvangelionZeta I think I just replicated your argument in summarised form lol