From today's NY Times. Being a NYC surburban person I feel it my duty to post the NYC point of view. (another stinkin liberal!)
Editorial
Pseudoscience and Tennessee's Classrooms (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/opinion/pseudoscience-and-tennessees-classrooms.html)
Published: April 15, 2012
Recommend
Twitter
Linkedin
Sign In to E-Mail
Print
Reprints
Share
Eighty-seven years after Tennessee was nationally embarrassed for criminally prosecuting the teaching of evolution, the state government is at it again. This time it has enacted a law that protects teachers who invite students to challenge the science underlying evolution and climate change. The measure is a transparent invitation to indulge pseudoscience in the classroom and a transparent pandering to a vocal, conservative fringe.
Related in Opinion
More on Education »
Opinion Twitter Logo.
Connect With Us on Twitter
For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.
Gov. Bill Haslam, a Republican, wrung his hands, warning that good legislation should bring "clarity and not confusion." But he allowed the bill to pass into law without his signature in the face of the Republican-dominated Legislature's three-to-one support of the measure.
Sponsors denied the obvious — that the law was a cover to make it easier to raise creationism and intelligent design as alternatives to evolution and to billboard conservative propaganda against the evidence of climate change. No, the law invites better "critical thinking," proponents said, by protecting teachers from administrative discipline when they help students critique what the law terms the strengths and "scientific weaknesses" of topics that "cause controversy" such as "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming and human cloning."
Thousands of scientists, educators and civil libertarians in Tennessee petitioned the governor to veto, warning that the law was an exercise in miseducation and a retreat to the antiscience and religious boosterism that scarred the 1925 trial of the schoolteacher John Scopes. Scopes presented an enduring lesson in the importance of standing up for science and the truth. It is amazing that so many politicians have still not figured that out.
Edit: Added link to original article - Tank
I have very mixed feelings about this. Part of me is horrified by the stupidity being exhibited here. But another (smaller) part of me is delighted that intellectual natural selection will take place and eventually Tennessee will illustrate (or not) what will actually happen when people are allowed to 'teach the controversy' as the Discovery Institute would put it. There has been a lot of speculation about what could/would happen, but now we will see what will happen. It's just a shame for the kids who will be experimented upon. You never know but one possible outcome is that science will win out over superstition in a sufficient number of kids that the policy will backfire.
Hmmm .... maybe not, given all the pressure the kids are under from other directions.
Quote from: OldGit on April 18, 2012, 09:28:06 AM
Hmmm .... maybe not, given all the pressure the kids are under from other directions.
Well this is also a possibility and it will be good to see what actually happens so if this sort of thing happens in the future there will be some evidence to work from.
Is it possible to return to the dark ages? To unlearn? People that think this way, its so hard to understand. Like kids torturing kittens.
Quote from: technolud on April 18, 2012, 11:05:58 AM
Is it possible to return to the dark ages? To unlearn? People that think this way, its so hard to understand. Like kids torturing kittens.
It's happened in the past. But we now have the Internet so it's unlikely because as long as we can keep a base technology running we'll be ok. However once books are gone there will be a 'point of no return' below which sheared knowledge will disappear.
Quote from: Tank on April 18, 2012, 11:12:12 AM
sheared knowledge will disappear.
...Or rather, the shared knowledge will get sheared.
Quote from: Asmodean on April 18, 2012, 12:41:44 PM
Quote from: Tank on April 18, 2012, 11:12:12 AM
sheared knowledge will disappear.
...Or rather, the shared knowledge will get sheared.
Or used to light up a camp fire.
Quote from: history_geek on April 18, 2012, 12:48:00 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on April 18, 2012, 12:41:44 PM
Quote from: Tank on April 18, 2012, 11:12:12 AM
sheared knowledge will disappear.
...Or rather, the shared knowledge will get sheared.
Or used to light up a camp fire.
...Or sheared and THEN used for said purpose. :D
That is a scary thought though. Think back to 1984 where Winston Smith's job was to re-write history. Going to get much, much easier when all of history is in electronic form.
Quote from: technolud on April 18, 2012, 06:31:13 PM
That is a scary thought though. Think back to 1984 where Winston Smith's job was to re-write history. Going to get much, much easier when all of history is in electronic form.
It's an interesting thought isn't it, that history will become even more mutable. In electronic form how would one tell which had been altered. The other really worrying issue is file type obsolescence. This is a serious issue for professional historians. What happens if at some point Jpeg is replaced and the new file reader is not backwards compatible?
He (she) who controls the information controls the world.
Quote from: technolud on April 18, 2012, 08:40:10 PM
He (she) who controls the information controls the world.
Knowledge and information mean power. That's how it's always been, no matter if we are talking about a city state having better understanding of harvests and cultivation, or the knowledge to make iron weapons as opposed to copper, or the ability to calculate something more accurately then the previous generation.
And I agree, one one hand it is good that knowledge is so much more readily available, not just history but any subject in general, through the amazing digital world. On another it also makes it that much more vulnerable, as Tank noted, and it is worrying that there are so many who would wish to alter it in favor of their lesser or greater delusions and preferences.
In my grumpier moods I agree with Freeman Dyson. He said we should only teach unimportant things in school like Greek and Latin (though I suppose if you live in Greece Greek might not be so unimportant). The reason is that whatever you teach in school kids will learn to hate.
I live in Ohio and know that the level of science education that happens here is already so abysmal that it's hard to imagine it getting worse. I can't picture Tennessee being any better. Why? Most science teachers in Ohio are scientifically illiterate. Either they themselves are creationists, or else they're theistic evolutionists (just as bad in many cases), or else they don't dare touch evolution because they know to avoid controversy. Biology taught without evolution? No wonder kids hate it! I had a creationist as a 10th grade biology teacher (he was also the guy who would coach anything) and it was a complete waste of time. Biology taught as Latin - no connections, no explanations, all description and coloring in of pictures.
Of course this doesn't apply to all teachers. Good teachers who actually understand science could easily "teach the controversy" and show that it isn't a controversy. But they're rare, and getting rarer as the profession devolves into drill and test. Sadly, this suits the poor teachers perfectly, because all they have to do is pour the sound bite facts into their students' heads. No explanations, no connections, no understanding. Just fill in the bubble.
I send my kids to public school for the socialization. As far as science education, I do it myself.
OK, sorry about that previous post. It was much too pessimistic. I'm making an effort to be more optimistic these days, and there is reason for (guarded) optimism. I recently came across an article about science knowledge in the United States (I apologize to international readers if you find no relevance here).
http://caise.insci.org/uploads/docs/FalkandDierking95perc.pdf
The article makes a startling revelation. We've all heard the American high school students are abysmal at science compared to the rest of the world. True. Did you know this, though?
"(F)or more than a
decade, performance by U.S. schoolaged
children on international tests
such as the quadrennial Trends in International
Mathematics and Science
Study (TIMSS) and the Programme
for International Student Assessment
(PISA) has followed a consistent pattern.
Elementary-school-aged U.S.
children perform as well as or better
than most children in the world, but
the performance of older U.S. children
has been mediocre at best. Interestingly,
however, for more than 20 years, U.S.
adults have consistently outperformed
their international counterparts on science
literacy measures, including adults
from South Korea and Japan, as well
as Western European countries such as
Germany and the United Kingdom."
The article then goes on to point out that young children don't get science instruction in school. Elementary school teachers focus overwhelmingly on reading and math, while science and social studies get only a tiny portion of the instructional time. And of course adults don't generally take science classes. It is only the students taking science on an everyday basis that score poorly!
So there are two puzzles: one, what are we doing wrong in school and two, what are we doing right everywhere else? Somehow those adults are catching back up to their counterparts all over the world. How are they doing it? The article argues that this education is happening outside of traditional school - television programs, internet and magazine articles, and museums.
Full disclosure: I work at a science museum, so of course I'm thrilled by this idea.
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
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.
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.
Quote from: markmcdaniel on June 08, 2012, 04:32:23 AM
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...
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.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on June 08, 2012, 11:10:24 PM
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.
Quote from: Firebird on June 09, 2012, 05:49:14 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on June 08, 2012, 11:10:24 PM
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?
QuoteAs 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: technolud on June 11, 2012, 12:51:36 AM
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.
Quote from: technolud on June 11, 2012, 12:51:36 AM
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.
Quote from: Crow on June 11, 2012, 01:33:20 PM
Quote from: technolud on June 11, 2012, 12:51:36 AM
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.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on June 12, 2012, 06:05:26 AM
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.
Quote from: Crow on June 12, 2012, 11:10:42 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on June 12, 2012, 06:05:26 AM
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.