Pseudoscience and Tennessee’s Classrooms

[joeactor]

Hey ablprop...

I grew up (and was schooled) in Ohio.  Seems like things have gotten much worse in the decades since my own education.

I actually attended a Catholic school until grade 8.  We went on field trips to museums, nature hikes, etc.  Science didn't seem to be a taboo subject.  Evolution was covered, and for the most part religion was kept separate.  There'd be the occasional "isn't it amazing what God can do", but not the general science war that seems to be happening now.

Truly disturbing about states rejecting science.

History_Geek mentioned power, and that could have a lot to do with it.
Both America and various religions are not in the same state they were when I was younger.
People didn't seem as insecure then.
It was ok to know some things and believe others - and to discuss the difference between the two.

Perhaps much of this search for control and power stems from a general feeling of insecurity?

Just musing...

(btw, ablprop - really cool that you work for a science museum!  maybe I should volunteer when I retire ;-)
JoeActor

[Firebird]

That fact about US adults really blows my mind, in a good way. It looks like one reason in the article is a larger percentage of adults going to museums, zoos, etc (I just did a quick peek at the report and saw that in one of the graphs). Or maybe the Discovery Channel I know I've started watching astronomy documentaries recently, which is something I've never really explored as much until now.

[markmcdaniel]

This law is indeed a very transparent attempt to get intelligent design and creationism into the schools and if I had much hair left I would be tearing it out. It is possible that the authors of this law should have considered the law of the unintended consequence when they wrote it. One negative consequence of this law may be that Tennessee's students will not be able to perform as well in collage placement exams and thus fewer will be able to get into they more and presumably better collages. The other consequence that comes immediately to mind is that controversy can and be and often is both interesting and fun. Combine these two things together and it is more than possible that Tennessee students will learn far more than the law's framers intend or want.

[Ali]

This law is indeed a very transparent attempt to get intelligent design and creationism into the schools and if I had much hair left I would be tearing it out. It is possible that the authors of this law should have considered the law of the unintended consequence when they wrote it. One negative consequence of this law may be that Tennessee's students will not be able to perform as well in collage placement exams and thus fewer will be able to get into they more and presumably better collages. The other consequence that comes immediately to mind is that controversy can and be and often is both interesting and fun. Combine these two things together and it is more than possible that Tennessee students will learn far more than the law's framers intend or want.

Good point.  It's entirely possible that their students may do a bit of research with the intention of backing up the creationist views they are being taught at home, and end up seeing the evidence for evolution instead...

[xSilverPhinx]

It is fairly interesting that adults become more scientifically literate when they leave school in the US. I don't really know about the local figures in Brazil, but based loosely off what I see on a day-to-day basis, illiteracy about even the basics is way too pervasive.

It seems that more more knowledge science accumulates, the more people are alienated from it, but on the other hand, the more easy access people have to the internet, the better. It at least seems to counter balance this. In school you're stuck with teachers, who can really limit a person's worldview if they want to, especially the vulnerable/impressionable.

As for ID/creationism and evolution, I think they should "teach" creationism and explain it's flaws, and why it's just so insanely inadequate to explain biology. ID isn't a threat to evolutionary theory in scientific terms - it simply can't compete, being a complete non-answer and with nothing more substantial to back it up other than god-of-the-gaps opinions, arguments from incredulity and the kind of strawman arguments based on false premises creationsim loves to throw around. It is a threat however because of its propaganda and because it knows how to play on people's ideas of common sense, and because of master debaters who win over a lot of people to their side. Something which can do that so easily without the need to present any actual facts is dangerous.

The main problems are teachers distort the information to work with ignorant people's tendency for disbelief that current lifeforms were not made as they are, already in their complex form. Not to mention many people would rather believe in the religious explanations, wrongly assuming that just because they really want to believe in something, doesn't make it real.

[Firebird]

As for ID/creationism and evolution, I think they should "teach" creationism and explain it's flaws, and why it's just so insanely inadequate to explain biology. ID isn't a threat to evolutionary theory in scientific terms - it simply can't compete, being a complete non-answer and with nothing more substantial to back it up other than god-of-the-gaps opinions, arguments from incredulity and the kind of strawman arguments based on false premises creationsim loves to throw around.

I'm a bit mixed on this. If you're talking about a class on religion/philosophy, sure. In a science class? It doesn't even merit discussion. Merely acknowledging it seems completely out of place.
But the more I think about this, the more I wonder if that is the way to go. It's always good to give students a defense against some of the twisted half-truths the creationists throw out there.

[fester30]

As for ID/creationism and evolution, I think they should "teach" creationism and explain it's flaws, and why it's just so insanely inadequate to explain biology. ID isn't a threat to evolutionary theory in scientific terms - it simply can't compete, being a complete non-answer and with nothing more substantial to back it up other than god-of-the-gaps opinions, arguments from incredulity and the kind of strawman arguments based on false premises creationsim loves to throw around.

I'm a bit mixed on this. If you're talking about a class on religion/philosophy, sure. In a science class? It doesn't even merit discussion. Merely acknowledging it seems completely out of place.
But the more I think about this, the more I wonder if that is the way to go. It's always good to give students a defense against some of the twisted half-truths the creationists throw out there.

This won't work.  There are simply too many science teacher in grade school and high school that are fervently religious, and would use the opening allowing them to talk about creationism openly not to attack it and point out its flaws, but to highlight what they perceive to be the strengths in ID and flaws in evolution.  I once had a science teacher talk about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as if it was in conflict with the Theory of Evolution, and asked us what would you believe, a law or a theory?  I had to explain that there is a difference between what most people think of the word theory and what it means in the scientific community, and also had to explain that the THERMO in thermodynamics means that those laws deal with heat, and entropy specifically in the second, and that is a far cry from the general principles of evolution.  Apples and oranges.  The teacher explained that there is still too much about evolution that scientists don't even agree on.  I explained that they agree on the overall idea, just that there were small parts of it that they were still searching for answers on, and that happens with most scientific theories.  That high school biology teacher then mentioned that she was the one with the college degree and that we didn't have time to debate in class so we'd just move on.

I just wish I would have asked what kind of toilet paper her degree was written on.

Seriously, though, Dr. Niel Degrasse Tyson makes a good point.  If 7% of the elite scientists believe in a higher power, how can we fault the average non-PhD for it?

[technolud]

As for ID/creationism and evolution, I think they should "teach" creationism and explain it's flaws, and why it's just so insanely inadequate to explain biology. ID isn't a threat to evolutionary theory in scientific terms - it simply can't compete, being a complete non-answer and with nothing more substantial to back it up other than god-of-the-gaps opinions, arguments from incredulity and the kind of strawman arguments based on false premises creationsim loves to throw around. It is a threat however because of its propaganda and because it knows how to play on people's ideas of common sense, and because of master debaters who win over a lot of people to their side. Roll Eyes Something which can do that so easily without the need to present any actual facts is dangerous. Roll Eyes

I agree with this.  Best way to get rid of ID is to shine a bright light on it.

[Asmodean]

It really is not my place to say what's best for the US students, but I would not want anything but science taught in a science class.

Are there no quality control kind of measures for teachers over there that re-educates those who are not quite up to date on their subject and get those unwilling to learn the fuck out of the entire system? A teacher is, of course, free to present his or her view when appropriate, but it should be stamped, tagged and watermarked as such. That does not only apply to science either - there is a difference between personal opinion and the standing facts. Those who do not understand it - or refuse to - should not teach.

[technolud]

To clairify, I believe ID should be taught in science class as part of the "scientific method" chapter.

I.E. here is scientific method.  A person postulates a therom, creates an experiment to test the therom, and other people can reproduce the results.  And here is an example of not science, Intelligent design.  There exists only a therom, no test, no reproducibility.  The first is science, the second is not.

Very illucidating I think.  Teach kids about science, also teach them how to spot dogma.

My kids definitely understand/stood this argument while in high school.

[Firebird]

To clairify, I believe ID should be taught in science class as part of the "scientific method" chapter.

I.E. here is scientific method.  A person postulates a therom, creates an experiment to test the therom, and other people can reproduce the results.  And here is an example of not science, Intelligent design.  There exists only a therom, no test, no reproducibility.  The first is science, the second is not.

Very illucidating I think.  Teach kids about science, also teach them how to spot dogma.

My kids definitely understand/stood this argument while in high school.

I could definitely see doing this. Would be perfect. Of course, then there would be accusations of political pandering with kids education, "religious freedom", etc.

To answer Asmo's question, one issue is that there is no national school curriculum in the US, nor, I believe, national teacher certification. It's all controlled by the states, and then on down to the local level. It's why states like Tennessee can decide that they want to teach ID as part of science. The federal government has some control in terms of the amount of aid it will send to states to support their schools, but I don't think there's much else beyond that.
The other problem is that teachers are poorly paid, so it's not the most attractive profession for most people.

[Crow]

To clairify, I believe ID should be taught in science class as part of the "scientific method" chapter.

I.E. here is scientific method.  A person postulates a therom, creates an experiment to test the therom, and other people can reproduce the results.  And here is an example of not science, Intelligent design.  There exists only a therom, no test, no reproducibility.  The first is science, the second is not.

Very illucidating I think.  Teach kids about science, also teach them how to spot dogma.

My kids definitely understand/stood this argument while in high school.

I can understand why you would want to teach people how to spot dogma and such but the science class room is not the place, education is to give a solid foundation of the most correct information available, seeing as how diverse and expansive science is by including Pseudoscience you are creating a disadvantage for students, as valuable knowledge will have to be cast aside to accommodate them. My secondary school was science focused which meant we had two different science subjects a day and I would say it still wasn't adequate. By actually doing science in the classroom and being able to observe real results and statistics which is lead by students they can witness, observe, and learn real science at the same time, there is no need to include worthless information especially when the earlier education system is really set up as a stepping stone to higher education.

[xSilverPhinx]

To clairify, I believe ID should be taught in science class as part of the "scientific method" chapter.

I.E. here is scientific method.  A person postulates a therom, creates an experiment to test the therom, and other people can reproduce the results.  And here is an example of not science, Intelligent design.  There exists only a therom, no test, no reproducibility.  The first is science, the second is not.

Very illucidating I think.  Teach kids about science, also teach them how to spot dogma.

My kids definitely understand/stood this argument while in high school.

I can understand why you would want to teach people how to spot dogma and such but the science class room is not the place, education is to give a solid foundation of the most correct information available, seeing as how diverse and expansive science is by including Pseudoscience you are creating a disadvantage for students, as valuable knowledge will have to be cast aside to accommodate them. My secondary school was science focused which meant we had two different science subjects a day and I would say it still wasn't adequate. By actually doing science in the classroom and being able to observe real results and statistics which is lead by students they can witness, observe, and learn real science at the same time, there is no need to include worthless information especially when the earlier education system is really set up as a stepping stone to higher education.

I don't know...I think that it's more productive to actually teach people how to think critically rather than simply throw a bunch of facts at them. Best scenario would probably be to put the two together - teach how to think based on the facts, because otherwise what you get are not only really ignorant people but people who can't tell what is justifiable based on evidence or the lack of evidence from what they really want to believe, or what feels like good ol' common sense. There are people who think that science is akin to religion, and that's just bizarre. ???  

As for ID, we aren't going to make people see it for the nonsense it is by simply not explaining why (why it isn't science) and telling them to memorise facts on evolution.

[Crow]

I don't know...I think that it's more productive to actually teach people how to think critically rather than simply throw a bunch of facts at them. Best scenario would probably be to put the two together - teach how to think based on the facts, because otherwise what you get are not only really ignorant people but people who can't tell what is justifiable based on evidence or the lack of evidence from what they really want to believe, or what feels like good ol' common sense. There are people who think that science is akin to religion, and that's just bizarre. ???  

As for ID, we aren't going to make people see it for the nonsense it is by simply not explaining why (why it isn't science) and telling them to memorise facts on evolution.

I agree thinking critically is very important and is a major part of science but that should become innate when taught proper science, not via textbooks but by experimentation and testing as you need to think critically to get the results, and really this is the true heart of modern science. Reading science from a text book is a waste of time, those that are taught in such a way are presented facts which conflict with their religious book they see it as similar and why should they believe it. You don't need to teach ID for example to show that layers observed in rock come from the progressive layering of different elements over a long periods of time, all you need is a variety of glass containers, a collection of various types of rocks, sand, and earth; and water. In every possible outcome you can do the only results that will be correct are those that dismiss the flood theory in ID. I was taught this in chemistry but it was also covered in physics and ID or religion was never mentioned. The second I heard this "theory" of ID I was shocked at how idiotic it was, and every theory I have ever heard relating to ID was disproved before I even heard of it.

Maybe the scientific method isn't being taught well enough and what is classified as evidence and what isn't. I haven't been in a science classroom in almost 10 years so I have no idea what they are like now, but I know the quality wasn't uniform whilst I was in education, with some of my peers never seeing a test tube or bunsen burner.

[xSilverPhinx]

I don't know...I think that it's more productive to actually teach people how to think critically rather than simply throw a bunch of facts at them. Best scenario would probably be to put the two together - teach how to think based on the facts, because otherwise what you get are not only really ignorant people but people who can't tell what is justifiable based on evidence or the lack of evidence from what they really want to believe, or what feels like good ol' common sense. There are people who think that science is akin to religion, and that's just bizarre. ???  

As for ID, we aren't going to make people see it for the nonsense it is by simply not explaining why (why it isn't science) and telling them to memorise facts on evolution.

I agree thinking critically is very important and is a major part of science but that should become innate when taught proper science, not via textbooks but by experimentation and testing as you need to think critically to get the results, and really this is the true heart of modern science. Reading science from a text book is a waste of time, those that are taught in such a way are presented facts which conflict with their religious book they see it as similar and why should they believe it. You don't need to teach ID for example to show that layers observed in rock come from the progressive layering of different elements over a long periods of time, all you need is a variety of glass containers, a collection of various types of rocks, sand, and earth; and water. In every possible outcome you can do the only results that will be correct are those that dismiss the flood theory in ID. I was taught this in chemistry but it was also covered in physics and ID or religion was never mentioned. The second I heard this "theory" of ID I was shocked at how idiotic it was, and every theory I have ever heard relating to ID was disproved before I even heard of it.

Maybe the scientific method isn't being taught well enough and what is classified as evidence and what isn't. I haven't been in a science classroom in almost 10 years so I have no idea what they are like now, but I know the quality wasn't uniform whilst I was in education, with some of my peers never seeing a test tube or bunsen burner.

From my experience in science classrooms, you weren't taught to reach a certain result based on collected data or evidence, mimicking what scientists do to reach what gets puts in the textbooks they make you learn. IMO this is flawed.

With ID (in the science classroom but not taught as something it's not), there's an opportunity to explain why it isn't science, and why evolutionary theory is so superior and why after about 200 years of scrutiny, not only has it failed, but it gets confirmed as the best explanatory framework. It's a good chance to immunise against pseudoscientific baloney.