In defense of high school education:

ctpeace
ctpeace Posts: 327 Member
in Chit-Chat
I wasn't sure where to post this, but I'm frustrated by forum arguements. Not the fact that people argue, mind you, but the fact that they are not able to form a rational arguement in defense of a theory. One recent conversation I've had (paraphrased)

Poster 1: OMG! Muscle doesn't weigh more than fat! A pound of fat weighs exactly the same as a pound of muscle!

Me: Actually, muscle DOES weigh more because if you take the same volume of each, the muscle is denser and therefore weighs more.

Poster 1: Ugh! I mean if you don't take volume or density into account!

Me: Um, actually, you have to. When you compare substances (not objects) you must standardize volume, or else you aren't actually measuring anything. A pound of anything always weighs the same as a pound of anything else!

Poster 2: That's right, density's important! Muscle is denser than fat like ice is denser than water!

Me: Um, actually, water is denser than ice, that's why ice floats. (It is, look it up, I promise)

Poster 2: Yeah right, so you're saying if I bash my head against ice, it will hurt less than if I bash it against water? Please! (seriously, that was the analogy used!)

Me: Density and resistance are not the same thing.
(what I really wanted to say: Yes, please go do both of those things, further damage to the contents of your skull won't matter much)



So, I hated high school physics too, but how come so many tuned it out?

This is just one example, but a big shout out to the smart kids who actually retained information or are currently studying, you will actually use some of it again!

Replies

  • TylerJ76
    TylerJ76 Posts: 4,375 Member
    :yawn: :yawn:
  • AllTehBeers
    AllTehBeers Posts: 5,030 Member
    The quality of education doesn't matter if the student doesn't care to learn.

    I went to school at a country bumpkin high school and I'm smarter then a lot of the kids that went to expensive private schools.

    Sorry you had to talk to a stupid person.
  • SerenaFisher
    SerenaFisher Posts: 2,170 Member
    That's what you get for having a battle of wits with an unarmed person. I hope you learned your lesson. :angry:
  • BeachIron
    BeachIron Posts: 6,490 Member
    ok
  • sizzle74
    sizzle74 Posts: 858 Member
    All your "ums" make you sound....um....not smart. :flowerforyou:
  • 37434958
    37434958 Posts: 457 Member
    LOL!!! This was just awesome! I love this thread!
  • dmpizza
    dmpizza Posts: 3,321 Member
    You are mixing units. Weight is not density.
  • wickedwendy6
    wickedwendy6 Posts: 117 Member
    I find your opinion to be intelligentist, as in you seem to look down on people less intelligent than yourself. It may not have been a case of 'tuning out' but possibly the fact that they were not able to 'get it'. And I believe that we are all intelligent, just in many different ways - for instance and using your example: they might not be able to understand physics but they may be able to fix a car or build a piece of furniture, both being something I would have no hope of doing. So all I'm saying is maybe try to be a little more understanding rather than judgmental, compassion sometimes goes a long way.
  • SherryTeach
    SherryTeach Posts: 2,836 Member
    As an English teacher with nearly four decades of experience, I am often shocked at the illiterate use of language on the message boards. I wonder how such misuse of language is even possible if a person went to school at all. As I point out to my students, you are taken more seriously if your writing approximates acceptable spelling, grammar and punctuation. I tell them that in the Internet Age, you are judged by your language because that's the only thing others see (except the underwear shots on MFP).
  • LizardQueen4PointOh
    LizardQueen4PointOh Posts: 245 Member
    I recall the thread. I had some major face-palming going on. :laugh:
  • ctpeace
    ctpeace Posts: 327 Member
    As an English teacher with nearly four decades of experience, I am often shocked at the illiterate use of language on the message boards. I wonder how such misuse of language is even possible if a person went to school at all. As I point out to my students, you are taken more seriously if your writing approximates acceptable spelling, grammar and punctuation. I tell them that in the Internet Age, you are judged by your language because that's the only thing others see (except the underwear shots on MFP).

    Even if that's all your student's get out of your class, you are doing them a great service!
  • mank32
    mank32 Posts: 1,323 Member
    what about the video of the lady freaking out because her sprinkler was making rainbows 'near the ground' and that's obviously not natural (rainbows r supposed to be in the SKY, duh) so they must be putting something in the water... :huh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :noway:
  • brower47
    brower47 Posts: 16,356 Member
    But a pound of one thing does weigh the same as a pound of something else... regardless of density. A pound is a pound.

    Am I missing something here, like a joke?
  • ctpeace
    ctpeace Posts: 327 Member
    But a pound of one thing does weigh the same as a pound of something else... regardless of density. A pound is a pound.

    Am I missing something here, like a joke?

    You are correct, the problem is that people use this true statement to support the false statement that "muscle and fat weigh the same". When you are comparing the weight of different substances, not objects, you have to standardize volume. The substance that is denser will weigh more. This is, for example, why cooking oil always floats on top of water. Water is denser, and therefore weighs more. "Pound" is the unit of weight, so if you say "a pound of fat weighs the same as a pound of muscle" you are correct, but you have not disproven the fact that muscle weighs more than fat because you're talking in circles. You're basically saying "a pound weighs a pound" rather than making a real comparison. Muscle, whose molecules (high water content) are packed more tightly (higher density) , therefore weighs more than Fat cells, which are mostly made of fat, of course.

    Let's say you wanted to test my theory that oil weighs less than water, how would you compare them? Would it make sense to compare 1gallon of water to 1liter of oil? No, you'd take the same volume of each. You also wouldn't measure out a pound of each and then compare their weight,, because the weight is something you already standardized; but that's the method that people are essentially using when they say "A pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat, therefore fat and muscle weigh the same".
  • MyChocolateDiet
    MyChocolateDiet Posts: 22,281 Member
    But a pound of one thing does weigh the same as a pound of something else... regardless of density. A pound is a pound.

    Am I missing something here, like a joke?

    You are correct, the problem is that people use this true statement to support the false statement that "muscle and fat weigh the same". When you are comparing the weight of different substances, not objects, you have to standardize volume. The substance that is denser will weigh more. This is, for example, why cooking oil always floats on top of water. Water is denser, and therefore weighs more. "Pound" is the unit of weight, so if you say "a pound of fat weighs the same as a pound of muscle" you are correct, but you have not disproven the fact that muscle weighs more than fat because you're talking in circles. You're basically saying "a pound weighs a pound" rather than making a real comparison. Muscle, whose molecules (high water content) are packed more tightly (higher density) , therefore weighs more than Fat cells, which are mostly made of fat, of course.

    Let's say you wanted to test my theory that oil weighs less than water, how would you compare them? Would it make sense to compare 1gallon of water to 1liter of oil? No, you'd take the same volume of each. You also wouldn't measure out a pound of each and then compare their weight,, because the weight is something you already standardized; but that's the method that people are essentially using when they say "A pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat, therefore fat and muscle weigh the same".

    Yeah but which weighs more? A pound of feathers, or a pound of carne asada?
  • ctpeace
    ctpeace Posts: 327 Member
    :) mmmmm... carne asaaaada!
  • jennifer_417
    jennifer_417 Posts: 12,344 Member
    The whole, "a lb is an lb" argument always seemed like hair-splitting, at best, to me.
  • veto1024
    veto1024 Posts: 20
    The whole, "a lb is an lb" argument always seemed like hair-splitting, at best, to me.

    It's pointing out that what people say isn't exactly what people mean. Everyone knows that when someone says a pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat, what they REALLY mean is that for IDENTICAL VOLUMES, the muscle will weigh more than the fat. What people are pointing out is that saying "A pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat" is equivalent to saying "$5 worth of gold is worth more than $5 worth of silver". It makes no sense. By tacking on identical monetary values to the description of the gold/silver, you are making their worth identical meaning "X is worth more than Y" is a nonsensical statement. For the gold/silver concept, one would say that for identical MASSES, gold is worth more than silver.

    I must say I like how the OPs argument turning into some nonsense about bashing heads against blocks of ice came about.

Categories