<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Texas textbooks technically taxed</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/11/25/texas-textbooks-technically-taxed/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/11/25/texas-textbooks-technically-taxed/</link>
	<description>I am an astronomer, writer, and skeptic. I likes reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way. My real name is Phil Plait, and I run the Bad Astronomy blog.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:02:45 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: texasteacher</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/11/25/texas-textbooks-technically-taxed/comment-page-2/#comment-57020</link>
		<dc:creator>texasteacher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:02:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/11/25/texas-textbooks-technically-taxed/#comment-57020</guid>
		<description>BA said: For those of you wondering about why I would mention math mistakes and creationists, you are missing the most obvious example: they think 6000 = 4.55 billion. Whatâ€™s a factor of 768,000 between friends nemeses?

768,000 * 6000 = 4,608,000,000

758,000 * 6000 = 4,548,000,000

But what&#039;s 10,000 (or even 60,000,000) between friends?  Wait what was this original post about?  Oh yeah, math errors.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>BA said: For those of you wondering about why I would mention math mistakes and creationists, you are missing the most obvious example: they think 6000 = 4.55 billion. Whatâ€™s a factor of 768,000 between friends nemeses?</p>
<p>768,000 * 6000 = 4,608,000,000</p>
<p>758,000 * 6000 = 4,548,000,000</p>
<p>But what&#8217;s 10,000 (or even 60,000,000) between friends?  Wait what was this original post about?  Oh yeah, math errors.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Uncountably many errors in Texas Math books &#187; Fun Math Blog</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/11/25/texas-textbooks-technically-taxed/comment-page-2/#comment-57019</link>
		<dc:creator>Uncountably many errors in Texas Math books &#187; Fun Math Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2008 06:12:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/11/25/texas-textbooks-technically-taxed/#comment-57019</guid>
		<description>[...] Bad Astronomy blog posted an article last November about reviewers of Texas Math books finding 109,623 errors among the books they [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Bad Astronomy blog posted an article last November about reviewers of Texas Math books finding 109,623 errors among the books they [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Seamyst</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/11/25/texas-textbooks-technically-taxed/comment-page-2/#comment-57018</link>
		<dc:creator>Seamyst</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2007 01:03:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/11/25/texas-textbooks-technically-taxed/#comment-57018</guid>
		<description>Wayne:
Okay, I&#039;ll concede on the discussion of translation/version/etc versus actual content.  I could probably try to debate the dating of the actual content as well, but it&#039;s not a big issue and I&#039;m lazy.  :)

I didn&#039;t read your post as meaning you&#039;re a creationist and didn&#039;t assume as such or anything.  My apologies if I came across that way in mine.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wayne:<br />
Okay, I&#8217;ll concede on the discussion of translation/version/etc versus actual content.  I could probably try to debate the dating of the actual content as well, but it&#8217;s not a big issue and I&#8217;m lazy.  <img src='http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>I didn&#8217;t read your post as meaning you&#8217;re a creationist and didn&#8217;t assume as such or anything.  My apologies if I came across that way in mine.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Centipede</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/11/25/texas-textbooks-technically-taxed/comment-page-2/#comment-57017</link>
		<dc:creator>The Centipede</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/11/25/texas-textbooks-technically-taxed/#comment-57017</guid>
		<description>&gt; As a reviewer of articles for technical journals, I consider that to be well within a normal number of errors.

Shush.  The orthodoxy of Reason Triumphant needs not your experiential logic--we are haranguing the unenlightened heathen Believers! ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt; As a reviewer of articles for technical journals, I consider that to be well within a normal number of errors.</p>
<p>Shush.  The orthodoxy of Reason Triumphant needs not your experiential logic&#8211;we are haranguing the unenlightened heathen Believers! <img src='http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jrkeller</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/11/25/texas-textbooks-technically-taxed/comment-page-2/#comment-57016</link>
		<dc:creator>jrkeller</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:53:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/11/25/texas-textbooks-technically-taxed/#comment-57016</guid>
		<description>I am probably the only one posting here who has kids in the Texas public school system.  One is in elementary school, one is in middle school and one is in high school.  The oldest one is also in special education, but she does attend regular education classes.

First of all, as Iâ€™ve said before, that contrary to various bloggerâ€™s opinions, religion (creationism or ID) is not being taught in Texas public school science classes and none of the science textbooks contain any language suggesting that the Earth is only 6000 years old.  My son is studying the solar system right now and guess what, he is being told that the solar system is 4.6 billion years old (gasp).  Last year it was rock formation and guess what, he was being told that Earth rocks could be million and possibly billions of years old (gasp).  Now some individual teachers may try to thrust their beliefs on their students, but as school policy, evolution is the only subject taught in Texas.

With regard to the math textbooks.  First of all, it is 164 books and online materials, not just books.  Second, in my school district, in addition to Spanish, materials are also available in Urdu and Vietnamese, so I see big possibilities for translation errors.  There are also materials for special education students too.  My sonâ€™s math textbook is approximately 925 pages longs and with 666 errors per book, that equates to something close to seven errors every ten pages.  As a reviewer of articles for technical journals, I consider that to be well within a normal number of errors.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am probably the only one posting here who has kids in the Texas public school system.  One is in elementary school, one is in middle school and one is in high school.  The oldest one is also in special education, but she does attend regular education classes.</p>
<p>First of all, as Iâ€™ve said before, that contrary to various bloggerâ€™s opinions, religion (creationism or ID) is not being taught in Texas public school science classes and none of the science textbooks contain any language suggesting that the Earth is only 6000 years old.  My son is studying the solar system right now and guess what, he is being told that the solar system is 4.6 billion years old (gasp).  Last year it was rock formation and guess what, he was being told that Earth rocks could be million and possibly billions of years old (gasp).  Now some individual teachers may try to thrust their beliefs on their students, but as school policy, evolution is the only subject taught in Texas.</p>
<p>With regard to the math textbooks.  First of all, it is 164 books and online materials, not just books.  Second, in my school district, in addition to Spanish, materials are also available in Urdu and Vietnamese, so I see big possibilities for translation errors.  There are also materials for special education students too.  My sonâ€™s math textbook is approximately 925 pages longs and with 666 errors per book, that equates to something close to seven errors every ten pages.  As a reviewer of articles for technical journals, I consider that to be well within a normal number of errors.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wayne</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/11/25/texas-textbooks-technically-taxed/comment-page-2/#comment-57015</link>
		<dc:creator>Wayne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:59:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/11/25/texas-textbooks-technically-taxed/#comment-57015</guid>
		<description>Okay, when did this become a discussion of versions and translations? Assuming that we&#039;re talking about the actual CONTENT and not the particular words or language or compilation etc., then it seems to me that the date it was written would be the &quot;age of&quot; the creation story. It seems silly to say I&#039;m &quot;wrong&quot; when I thought I was clearly talking about authorship, but I will concede that my reference to the &quot;modern&quot; Bible made it more ambiguous, especially regarding the NT.

Also, please note that I&#039;m NOT a creationist, the 800 year thing just struck me as incorrect without any qualifiers. Incidentally, people who think that KJV is THE Bible drive me nuts.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Okay, when did this become a discussion of versions and translations? Assuming that we&#8217;re talking about the actual CONTENT and not the particular words or language or compilation etc., then it seems to me that the date it was written would be the &#8220;age of&#8221; the creation story. It seems silly to say I&#8217;m &#8220;wrong&#8221; when I thought I was clearly talking about authorship, but I will concede that my reference to the &#8220;modern&#8221; Bible made it more ambiguous, especially regarding the NT.</p>
<p>Also, please note that I&#8217;m NOT a creationist, the 800 year thing just struck me as incorrect without any qualifiers. Incidentally, people who think that KJV is THE Bible drive me nuts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Seamyst</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/11/25/texas-textbooks-technically-taxed/comment-page-2/#comment-57014</link>
		<dc:creator>Seamyst</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:18:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/11/25/texas-textbooks-technically-taxed/#comment-57014</guid>
		<description>Wayne:  &lt;i&gt;I think even the most skeptical readers will concede that itâ€™s considerably older, on the order of 2500 to 3000 years old. In fact, Iâ€™m not aware of any parts of the modern Christian Bible that are less than 1800 or so years old, but I havenâ€™t researched it thoroughly.&lt;/i&gt;

This is wrong - understandable, but wrong.  One of my classes this semester was a 400/500 level history class, The History of Christianity to 1500.  Taking your last point first, the four gospels of the New Testament weren&#039;t even decided upon until well after the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE.  The first true Latin version of the bible (meaning properly and carefully translated) was the Vulgate, which was completed in the early 5th century.  And the gospels of the NT weren&#039;t &quot;published&quot; together, between one set of covers, until the 9th or 10th century.  So take your pick, but you really can&#039;t argue that the NT is at least 1800 years old.

Incidentally, the Vulgate was also the first bible to be translated into Latin directly from the Hebrew, rather than the Greek, bible.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wayne:  <i>I think even the most skeptical readers will concede that itâ€™s considerably older, on the order of 2500 to 3000 years old. In fact, Iâ€™m not aware of any parts of the modern Christian Bible that are less than 1800 or so years old, but I havenâ€™t researched it thoroughly.</i></p>
<p>This is wrong &#8211; understandable, but wrong.  One of my classes this semester was a 400/500 level history class, The History of Christianity to 1500.  Taking your last point first, the four gospels of the New Testament weren&#8217;t even decided upon until well after the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE.  The first true Latin version of the bible (meaning properly and carefully translated) was the Vulgate, which was completed in the early 5th century.  And the gospels of the NT weren&#8217;t &#8220;published&#8221; together, between one set of covers, until the 9th or 10th century.  So take your pick, but you really can&#8217;t argue that the NT is at least 1800 years old.</p>
<p>Incidentally, the Vulgate was also the first bible to be translated into Latin directly from the Hebrew, rather than the Greek, bible.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
