|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5162 days) Posts: 649 From: Melbourne, Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Ok. Why not. Let's teach ID in Science class! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LinearAq Member (Idle past 4676 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
crashfrog writes: It seems that "Critical thinking" is being equated with skepticism, doubt, or disrespect. I disagree with this interpretation. Some skill can be taught that would foster critical thinking in High School students without causing the dilema you put forth. Critical thinking is a skill you have to develop on your own. It's fundamentally incompatible with the teacher/classroom paradigm.Teaching the proper methods for interpretation of empirical evidence would help. What to look for in a research report or presentation that indicates that the scientific method (for want of a better phrase) has been followed. I agree that the point where ID has been thrust into the classroom is not the place to begin "lessons in critical thinking"...too volatile. It would be better as a first year class in High School. Perhaps a class where students read "research documents", both real and bogus, then present critiques of them. As the class progresses the instructor could teach the methods for properly critiquing scientific research. I'm sure there are plenty of bogus "research" documents out there dealing with anything from ghosts to dousing that don't require stepping on anyone's religious toes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It seems that "Critical thinking" is being equated with skepticism, doubt, or disrespect. I don't think it's quite that bad, though I do disagree with Crashfrog about the limits of what can be taught. What are the elements of "Critical Thinking" then? I'll throw in:Skepticism Logic Objectivism Review Deduction Any others? Certainly Logic can be taught as easily as math, but can you really teach skepticism? It seems to me there needs to be some inate mental ability level as a foundation, some threshold ability for Critical Thinking. Lets look at a recent example here, Message 28 where the writer accuses another poster of the " ... arrogant condescension of ad hominem attack ... " even though the evidence shows that (1) ohnhai (Message 10) was responding to Crashfrog by saying that " Holocaust denial and Flat-Earthism are not held up as shining examples of science that YECs want taught in schools." (ie noting that YECs are not advocating the teaching of these concepts) and (2) Crashfrogs comment (Message 8) was: " It's as much a waste of time to teach ID, even as a negative example, as it would be to examine Holocaust denial or flat-Earthism." Neither poster is saying that YECs or IDists or anyone else in the creationist fold is advocating the teaching of Holocaust denial or flat-Earthism. Now we could say that the conclusion posted by John Jaeger (aka Mirabile_Auditu, SpiderMBA and more) was due to either ignorance (difficult in this case as it is easily "cured" by reading the posts and following the links between them to see the argument), stupidity (for not being able to see and understand the points being made), insanity - including delusion - (not in touch with the reality of the posts or focusing on certain words to the exclusion of others and the meaning of the sentence), or maliciousness (intentionally baiting and using the logical fallacy "argument of prejudicial language" just to insult others by association or to disrupt the thread in the manner of internet trolls) ... or we could say there are other reasons for the post that John made here. But what we cannot say is that it is the result of "Critical Thinking" - not just because it is so obviously wrong, but because some of the elements noted above are absent: logic, review, deduction - and possibly others should they be added to the list.
John, msg 28 writes: Michael Behe is not known for his "Holocaust denial and Flat-Earthism." True, however, he is noted for saying that his definition of (scientific) theory would include astrology:
Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of "theory" was so broad it would also include astrology.
(Quote from "Astrology is scientific theory, courtroom told" article on NewScientist.com) Enjoy. by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
There are plenty of papers published that, when examined, critically can be called "bogus". They don't have to be on pseudo science topics.
Not all science that is published is well done.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annafan Member (Idle past 4579 days) Posts: 418 From: Belgium Joined: |
What are the elements of "Critical Thinking" then? I would say a certain amount of general knowledge of how the world works is an additional necessity. There have to be some dots before you can connect them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Annafan writes: There have to be some dots before you can connect them. True. But some people are satisfied with just one dot:
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annafan Member (Idle past 4579 days) Posts: 418 From: Belgium Joined: |
Is not the God-dot all they've got a shot at?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rip721 Inactive Member |
This is a bit off-topic, but I would just like to thank you all for helping me with my "Persuasive Essay" for my 10th grade english class. I have used this forum as one of my references and given you all the credit you deserve. (strict "no plagiarism" policy)
I have chosen the topic of what should be taught in schools, Creation or Evolution, which I have come to believe should be a bit of both. Although, there was plenty of information that my mind was not able to grasp, and I ended up reading certain posts more than once, I have been able to gain a better understanding of what the main battles have become. My own input to this thread.Using my own 10th grade biology class as an example, many teachers do not have the ability to grasp the attention of the wandering minds of their students. So trying to have all of the students apply critical thinking by themselves inside the classroom is near impossible. Passing classes have become a group effort, from wandering eyes to wandering answers. Although this does sound like a general question of whether the teacher is qualified to do a good job. This is only an assumption, yet from my eyes it seems that high school students are trying less to learn and more to pass. As I am just getting further from the actual subject I will just end here. Thank you all again for your thoughts if you have any questions for me please send me an e-mail.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Uh, I was taught critical thinking in a classroom context. The course title was "The Nature of Scientific Inquiry."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: "Critical thinking" most certainly equals "skepticism and doubt". It doesn't involve lack of respect of anything, however.
quote: Have you ever been in a room when a bunch of scientists are discussing a not-great paper in their field of expertise? There is always skepticism and doubt as they evaluate the paper.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Uh, I was taught critical thinking in a classroom context. You might have been taught techniques of empiricism, but did you really not know how to approach information or instruction critically before you took a class on it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Well, I it was a process. I used to "kind of" belive in all sorts of things when I was young, and definitely believed in God until my mid twenties or so, but the course I took certainly helped organize my thoughts and introduced me to many ways of thinking about claims that I had never known about before.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Your experience may sort of prove my point; or it's possible that I'm making a point that isn't provable.
In my experience, there are people who do not think critically. They will accept the conclusions of anyone they choose to deem an authority; and they usually anoint their authorities based on the opinions of other authorities. You could sit such a person down in a classroom, and instruct them not to accept uncritically the statements of authorities, and they would accept that statement uncritically; then they would leave the classroom and accept uncritically the statements of authority. It's the "I'm an individualist, just like everybody else" problem. It's why people on the left and right parrot the so-called "talking points", and then accuse the other side of parroting talking points.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
this leads to the question of what are the minimum number of dots needed to connect the reality we know.
is 1+1 really 2? by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
This is only an assumption, yet from my eyes it seems that high school students are trying less to learn and more to pass. Yes, I have seen that. More in the spring than in the fall . Perhaps it is due to the absence of value placed on education in the society as a whole? Why do something with no percieved value attached? As a side note, college students don't appreciate older students that come back to learn ... because they are the ones that want to learn and they skew the curves for those who are there to please their parents, to get a good job down the line, meet mates, party, etcetera.
Creation or Evolution, which I have come to believe should be a bit of both. Interested in how you came to that conclusion. And both what? The scientific theory of evolution and the creation story are two different things altogether - and which creation story do you like: Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, American Indians (several), Greek, Roman,Eegyptian, Norse, Sikh, Baha'i, Jain, Cao Dai, Rastafarian, Tenrikyo, Aztec, Confuscian, Taoist, Pagan, Bantu, other African (several), Zoroastrian, Deist, Mayan, Inca, Australian Aborigine, Weaver, Crocthor, Southern Cross and Beer, Oz, Gog\Agog ...... have I left anybody out? Enjoy. by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rogerw1 Inactive Member |
I decided to go back to college at 38 to finish my degree. I decided to take anthropology . I grew up in a religious back ground . I wanted to make up my own mind about evolution. After taking the class I thought it would be clear to me . The class starts out the concept of evolution .
NSTA recommends that: 1."Science curricula and teachers should emphasize evolution in a 2.manner commensurate with its importance as a unifying concept in science and its overall explanatory power. 3.Policy-makers and administrators should not mandate policies requiring the teaching of creation science or related concepts such as so-called "intelligent design," "abrupt appearance," and "arguments against evolution." 4.Science teachers should not advocate any religious view about creation, nor advocate the converse: that there is no possibility of supernatural influence in bringing about the universe as we know it. Teachers should be nonjudgmental about the personal beliefs of students. 4.Administrators should provide support to teachers as they design and implement curricula that emphasize evolution. This should include inservice education to assist teachers to teach evolution in a comprehensive and professional manner. Administrators also should support teachers against pressure to promote nonscientific views or to diminish or eliminate the study of evolution. 5.Parental and community involvement in establishing the goals of science education and the curriculum development process should be encouraged and nurtured in our democratic society. However, the professional responsibility of science teachers and curriculum specialists to provide students with quality science education should not be bound by censorship, pseudoscience, inconsistencies, faulty scholarship, or unconstitutional mandates. 6.Science text books shall emphasize evolution as a unifying concept. Publishers should not be required or volunteer to include disclaimers in textbooks concerning the nature and study of evolution. I am sorry to say I finished the class with more questions than I had before. almost every article makes a reference to the book of genesis . It seems to me this is a poor way of teaching .by back door trashing of the word of god . why does this have to be done . your science people right you have the proof right ?I am starting to believe science and religion are just milking this for grant money and donations I want the data the empirical evidence . I agree evolution has the advantage because of bones fragments found supposedly older than the bible. who is to say the bible is true we dont know do we. ID has no place in the schools but in the same way the very articles o evolution theory within by , gould, bernstine, dettwyler,just name a few put a negative spin on creation. This is wrong just teach the science . I got so tired of reference to the book of genesis . Maybe this is the problem scientist should revise there text spot the bashing of god . because that's what it comes down to and they cannot do anything about because the schools policy on religion . a far as i concerned evolution theory has may hole in it .what to believe darwin, gould, we can even decide on whom the direct acesisters to homo sapiens are .also the variance of classifications between scientists of hominid or hominim. evolution still boils down to faith in what you believe . man wrote the bible i don't believe everything it says . I do believe in the ideology of god and the ten commandments that's what we a race represent . ideas of right and wrong and the laws of the land . Leave this debate between the two rest . because the end result just might not be what your looking for . if there's no god there's no rules anymore .we have people going to court now say in god we trust on money violates his civil rights this is crazy nor did we come from a fish . the fact is we will never know it all . teach us dont waste our time with bs in between thank you Roger Williams
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024