That perception made the rounds for a long time, until somebody decided to examine it
with some logic. He was surprised to discover that there were people who actually like
Science, and he was shocked to find that there are almost as many of them as the people
who can't stand it.
He couldn't quite figure out what this all means, and finally, he gathered up all
of his numbers and went to his Science teacher for help to make sense of it.
His Science teacher was happy to see him, and completely overjoyed when she
heard his question.
The first thing she showed him was that he was going about trying to solve this
question in a beautiful, perfectly scientific way ... not just asking his friends for
their opinions, but actually counting things up.
Next, she showed him a couple of scientific conclusions that he could draw from the
numbers he had collected. (She started calling his numbers 'data', and he felt great
when he heard that.)
She showed him that after he finished counting all the students in his school,
there were 197 who said they like Science, and 202 who said that Science sucks.
She explained that since the two numbers were less than 3% different, it was OK
to say that they were "approximately equal", and when you do that, a really wild
hypothesis jumps out: About 1/2 of the kids in the school said that Science sucks,
and approximately the same number said that the same Science doesn't suck.
So the intrinsic likability, the inherent characteristic that generates the coefficient
of pleasure, must not be in the Science ... it must be in the students !
If you go with this hypothesis, it can lead to all sorts of stunning corollaries, like:
-- When somebody feels like asking "Why does Science suck ?", Science has no
responsibility to come up with an answer ... it's that person's job to figure out
what it is about him that makes him push away from Science ?
-- And it's not good enough for the Science teachers to just put the Science out
there and say "here it is come and get it", it has to be their job to understand
that different kids learn stuff in different ways, and to be able to put the Science
across in some different ways for different students.
The student picked up his papers and his notes, thanked his Science teacher and
bid her good day. On his way out, he was thinking that this could be interesting to
show his Math and Sociology teachers, and might even score him a few extra points
in those other classes. And his mom might want to take it to the PTA or the School
Board. And as much as he didn't feel like talking to his older sister, this might have
something to do with her college stuff in Elementary Education and stuff.
Science doesn't suck; it is a systematic and evidence-based approach to understanding the natural world. However, science can be challenging and complex, requiring rigorous methodologies and critical thinking skills. It also evolves and updates as new information becomes available. So, it may seem difficult or frustrating at times, but it is a crucial tool for advancing knowledge and improving our understanding of the universe.
suck my ball
u suck
suck a nut
when you suck to much penis
Not so much science - as technology. Technology developed the 'chip and pin' system - making credit & debit cards more secure.
gears of war doesn't even suck
What page? Wikianswers? If so, then get off it.
EA doesn't suck. The company has much to offer the gaming community and of course, there'll be a few disappointments.
Because you pull.
Edwards Cullen loves Bella swan so much but he is a vampire so he wants to suck her blood(he has never wantesd to suck human's blood so much before)
... nevermind. i fail.
They just do, $#%@ and get over it
because they were born that way
suck my ball
Beacuse they dont
Type your answer here... u suck
because poetry is for gay people