Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An educational angle we all could live with? (Philosophy of Science)
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 76 of 91 (209602)
05-19-2005 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Limbo
05-19-2005 6:08 AM


The way it looks now, its as if mainstream science insists its favorable interpretation of the evidence is the only possible one.
But the mainstream interpretation of science is not "There is no God", so why does the issue arise?
ID is not another interpretation of the facts, it is a paper thin hypothesis which relies on specific areas of the unknown within an otherwise fairly well understood body of knowledge.
The entire process of science is arguably to determine which intepretations are favoured by the actual data rather than the experimenter, it is the reticence of the ID camp to actually produce any relevant data that keeps them out of the 'game'.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Limbo, posted 05-19-2005 6:08 AM Limbo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by hitchy, posted 05-20-2005 1:24 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Dr Cresswell
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 91 (209604)
05-19-2005 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Limbo
05-19-2005 6:08 AM


Of course mainstream scientists will take the view that the interpretation of the evidence that they have is the best possible interpretation that they have. To do otherwise is just plain daft.
So, to bash on with the common example, mainstream scientists look at the relevant evidence (fossils, genetic data from existing species etc) and consider the Theory of Evolution is the best possible explanation for that evidence. What mainstream scientists (with a few exceptions) don't say is that the Theory of Evolution rules out a possible Creator or Designer, nor for that matter that there's conclusive scientific proof for either. Mainstream science may be incompatible with certain theories of creation that try and muscle in on the scientific turf. But there's no way a scientist can say the earth wasn't created 6000 years ago with everything in place to make it look like it's 4.5 billion years old, nor that life on earth was created at that time with everything in place to make it look like life evolved from simple cells to the variety we see today. A scientist can say that there's no evidence of accelerated radioactive decay, significant changes in the speed of light, or any of the other "scientific" theories proposed by some people who try and force the scientific data into a recent Creation model. A scientist can say that there are possible mechanisms for blood clotting cascades to have developed from other biochemical pathways with the intervention of an intelligent designer, contra people who may postulate such "irriducibly complex" systems as proof for such a designer. Science can't rule out an intelligent designer who worked leaving no scientific evidence of his activity; but then what would be the point of science investigating such an invisible designer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Limbo, posted 05-19-2005 6:08 AM Limbo has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 78 of 91 (209606)
05-19-2005 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Limbo
05-19-2005 6:08 AM


Criticism keeps science accurate
The way it looks now, its as if mainstream science insists its favorable interpretation of the evidence is the only possible one. The arrogance, ridicule and hostility toward other interpretations is appauling.
There are plenty of times when there are two contradictory interpretations of the same set of evidence and there is no ridicule or hostility. For an easy example look at the evolution of birds. The same set of evidence leads some scientists to interpret that dinosaurs evolved into birds, whilst some say that birds and dinosaurs shared a relatively recent common ancestor.
The only time other interpretations are sharply critiqued is as a result of a lack of positive evidence.. For example, I could say that all humans are living in a matrix, controlled by artificial intelligent machines that we designed. Or I could say that I am just a brain in a jar, making up the reality I 'see'. That's great for philosophical conversations, but it is not scientific.
Lets go to the old ID analogy. We know that 747s and watches were designed and built by an intelligent agent because tools are needed to construct them. If the ID movement can show us what tools were needed to design or build humans then they would be on the way to science. Unfortunately, since the building blocks of life happily bond with one another chemically (with no need of tools), it seems like ID can't take the same road that leads us to infer that watches are designed. Oops, I'm drifing off topic here a little aren't I?

Eternity is in love with the productions of time.
The busy bee has no time for sorrow.
The hours of folly are measur'd by the clock; but of wisdom, no clock can measure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Limbo, posted 05-19-2005 6:08 AM Limbo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Brad McFall, posted 05-22-2005 2:06 PM Modulous has not replied

  
hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 79 of 91 (209881)
05-20-2005 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Silent H
05-17-2005 3:19 PM


Re: The Full Biology Curriculum
Like you, people seem to think they can get along just fine ARGUING without understanding LOGIC and EPISTEMOLOGY... with perhaps a nod to a few terms like ad hominem and strawman.
So, do you think I do not understand LOGIC and EPISTEMOLOGY? That I am masquerading around using the right terms without understanding their inherent meanings and possible implications? What is my purpose, then, posting here for thunderous applause and recognition? Teaching b/c I need a paycheck instead of wanting to pass on a passion for a certain topic? Grandstanding b/c of my ego instead of trying to improve the lives of my students?
Have you ever worked with teenagers who could not read above a third-grade level? Or tried to get two coherent sentences down on paper from a student with dislexia? Or tried to convice a student with ODD that he/she needs to do something, anything, in order to be successful? "EPISTE-WHAT!?!" "I think fine. You don't know nothing no-how!" You have to pick your battles and take what you can get. Sometimes you want to run out of the room screaming "Why didn't this work?" Sometimes, though, you can afford a smile!
I have studied logic and epistemology. I might not be the best at explaining what they mean or how exactly they are used, but that is not my job. I teach biology to students who do not give a shit about anything. Or they cannot study at all b/c they have to take care of brothers and sisters while mom works the late shift at some low-end hole in order to keep the lights and the heat on. If I get something across to them then I call it a victory. Besides, it is not the lessons these students remember, but how they were treated. If they respect me and think I am treating them fairly, some of what I teach will stay with them. Any discussion about philosophy of whatever with these kids would be like running into a brick wall. So I simplify and if I can get them to think a little more logically, then I consider it a victory. Besides, most of my students don't need to know the definitions of LOGIC and EPISTEMOLOGY in order to use them.
I do the best I can with what I have. I do understand that the educational system I work in is flawed. In some cases, flawed tremendously. The only way these flaws are fixed is when an educator/group of educators/individual schools correct the misled and often misplaced directives from those above. There are many things in the MD state science curriculum that I disagree with. However, the curriculum does not limit what I can cover. It is only stating the bare minimum that will be tested. It is up to my collegues and I to make our lessons and classes more meaningful. With the advanced students, we teach more about what science actually is (which of course includes logic and how we know what we know.) Do I need to tell them that they are learning LOGIC or EPISTEMOLOGY? Does it matter if they know definitions? Will they remember them down the road? Isn't it more important to know how to use the ideas in the context in which they need to use them?
EVERYONE uses philosophy, at the very least, logic.
I agree that everyone uses philosophy. You cannot escape it. However, does everyone need to perfect the use of anything dealing with philosophy in order to be successful? Just like some Euglena, an eye spot is better than no "vision" at all!
Being in the dark regarding logic and epistemology, your word is going to sound just as good as the IDists word, but maybe a few music majors will feel yours doesn't sound right to them due to emotional issues and not realize that isn't valid.
I don't exactly know what you are getting at here, but the whole comment about music and art stems from my experiences with upper level students--most of them are proficient artists and vocalists and musicians. Maybe their success in a very personal endevour such as the arts builds their confidence. Maybe the rigorous training and the development of self-discipline inherent in becoming good at something they are passionate about makes them better students. My point is that they pick things up whether they know they are or not. Taking away from that in order to insert something they might not be able to handle due to their stage of cognitive development could be detrimental to their future cognitive development. I just don't think its a good idea to risk stunting their cognitive growth by attempting to fast-forward it.
Emotional issues cloud every high school student and I feel that the impact of social withdrawl and lack of parental supervision and attention being felt by my students increases every year. You cannot divorce emotion from any interaction with high school students. It is impossible. You should try it! Come sit in my classroom for 180 days and observe how I teach biology. Then you can evaluate what I teach about LOGIC and EPISTEMOLOGY and say what you want. In the meantime, come down off the horse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Silent H, posted 05-17-2005 3:19 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Silent H, posted 05-20-2005 6:13 AM hitchy has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 80 of 91 (209889)
05-20-2005 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Limbo
05-19-2005 5:30 AM


Assumptions Creeping In
If they want to believe a designer is behind life, they are free to do so...and tell them why science cant confirm or deny a designer.
If this isnt stressed, assumptions creep in.
Assumptions don't creep in. They are pushed, forced and shoved in. This is done rarely by the scientists like Dawkins and very, very frequently by those who claim to be on the side of religious beliefs. It is the literalists who are all over the media and here claiming that various scientific knowledge is "atheist", "immoral" and the like.
In todays enviroment in places like the less enlightened USA I agree that it is necessary to remind students that science has nothing and can have nothing to say about the existance of God. We are lucky here that this is rarely an issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Limbo, posted 05-19-2005 5:30 AM Limbo has not replied

  
hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 81 of 91 (209891)
05-20-2005 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Wounded King
05-19-2005 6:26 AM


Here, here!!!
I couldn't agree more.
But the mainstream interpretation of science is not "There is no God", so why does the issue arise?
The members of congregations who view their own limited worldview as the only legitimate one make it an issue. In order to "save" themselves and their children, they have to continuously re-fill the bottle of 'MIND WASH' in order to kill the germs that lead to independent thought.
A friend of mine who teaches AP Biology received an email from a parent of one of his regular ed kids that stated that if he taught evolution, he had to teach creationism and ID!?! WTF!?! My collegue merely told him to take a look at the current bio standards and a nice message from our state superintendent that lays out why we teach evolution. The father then challenged the teacher to a duel! Funny thing is, the kid doesn't have a problem with evolution. He actually says that it makes sense and that it has no effect on his religious beliefs!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Wounded King, posted 05-19-2005 6:26 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 82 of 91 (209930)
05-20-2005 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by hitchy
05-20-2005 1:11 AM


Re: The Full Biology Curriculum
In the meantime, come down off the horse.
Let me start by explaing something to you. I responded to your post, which was a guy on his high horse explaining why ID was bunk, and how philosophy is not only pointless to be taught in and of itself, but actually could be detrimental. If anyone was sitting high in the saddle first, and so asking to get knocked off, it was you.
I apologize if my using caps, because I was writing quickly, made it seem as if I was shouting instead of emphasizing. Lately I've been trying to stick with italics, but sometimes I revert back for speed.
You did appear to have misunderstood a couple of my statements. I was not saying that you yourself had no understanding of logic and epistemology. Indeed I think I nodded to the fact you mentioned you had some formal training in it. What I was criticizing is your view, which most people share, that people in general can get along fine arguing (specifically in science) without understanding such things.
I guess when I used "they" instead of "people" it sounded like it was all self-reflective. Speed kills and in that case I was simply trying not to use "people" twice in the same sentence.
Have you ever worked with teenagers who could not read above a third-grade level? Or tried to get two coherent sentences down on paper from a student with dislexia? Or tried to convice a student with ODD that he/she needs to do something, anything, in order to be successful?
Your argument above has nothing to do with the teaching of philosophy, particularly logic, to students in addition to science courses. All of these people would/could also have problems with math, art, and music.
I teach biology to students who do not give a shit about anything. Or they cannot study at all b/c they have to take care of brothers and sisters while mom works the late shift at some low-end hole in order to keep the lights and the heat on. If I get something across to them then I call it a victory.
Again, this does not address what I was talking about. If anything it is ignoring the very points I was making. I do not believe that you as a biology teacher should have to teach philosophy of science, much less philosophy itself. I am totally on board that science courses from beginning, till late in high school, should stick with the modern accepted theories in the fields as well as (if not most importantly) the methods.
What I was addressing is you assertion that one could not find time to stick logic (at the very least) into any time slot in a students curriculum, and if one did it would not be understood and perhaps reduce their ability to understand other things. You have done much assertion, or should I say preaching, on the low expectations we should have for our students. I found it insulting both to my own intelligence and to their's.
Any discussion about philosophy of whatever with these kids would be like running into a brick wall.
Other than your assertion of low expectations, why is this true? Especially given the very next statements...
So I simplify and if I can get them to think a little more logically, then I consider it a victory. Besides, most of my students don't need to know the definitions of LOGIC and EPISTEMOLOGY in order to use them.
So they can use the skills, and you can teach them the skills, but it is simply learning the names or in a way that is specific to how and why they are used in everday life is what will prevent them from understanding? This makes no sense.
I agree that everyone uses philosophy. You cannot escape it. However, does everyone need to perfect the use of anything dealing with philosophy in order to be successful? Just like some Euglena, an eye spot is better than no "vision" at all!
I could use the same argument for any other field of human knowledge. Why does it stand more for philosophy than any other field?
If we are going to go with the idea that students have a limited capacity for knowledge as well as time and we need to cut down on what they learn, then I am for cutting out biology altogether.
Even as a scientist, I did not need biology. No one I know ever needed biology, except those who went into biology in college. Yet as you point out, everyone does use philosophy. Whether they know it or not, they have to as soon as they construct an argument or begin to assess the validity of another person's argument.
So rather than giving them "weak eyes" in logic, I woud argue they are best met by giving them "sharp eyes" in logic. After all that will go on to serve them in any further field they enter... including biology. Why would this not make sense?
Of course this is only to buy into the stock dilemma you have offered.
Taking away from that in order to insert something they might not be able to handle due to their stage of cognitive development could be detrimental to their future cognitive development. I just don't think its a good idea to risk stunting their cognitive growth by attempting to fast-forward it.
I want some data on this. I want some data and an actual argument. Beyond assertion it is bigoted ad hominem pure and simple. Philosophy is artificially attempting to fast-forward cognitive development and will result in stunted growth? Philosophy is the equivalent of intellectual cigarette smoking?
How does this hold for philosophy any more than any other field of knowledge? Replace your statement with the assumption of any other activity taught to students and see if it sounds correct.
Emotional issues cloud every high school student and I feel that the impact of social withdrawl and lack of parental supervision and attention being felt by my students increases every year. You cannot divorce emotion from any interaction with high school students. It is impossible. You should try it!
So what we need is less education and more psychologists and social workers? I am not getting your point here. Either we can educate students and so try to do it, or we shouldn't. How this points to us trying to teach kids biology is beyond me.
Come sit in my classroom for 180 days and observe how I teach biology. Then you can evaluate what I teach about LOGIC and EPISTEMOLOGY and say what you want.
I did not say you didn't teach well, nor even that you ought to be teaching philosophy. If you had read my post correctly you should have understood that.
I am suggesting that along with language, logic is the next most important subject we should be teaching students as it is the only bridge between just rambling in coherent sentences, and actually building a coherent position with coherent sentences. That comes before and underlies everything else which counts as knowledge.
There should be time made for at the very least logic, if not theories of knowledge (if "epistemology" is too much of a mouthful) and philosophy of science, prior to or concurrent with science courses. It is perhaps even more important than math as a skill in every day life as well as a tool of science.
This does not have to be taught to people younger than the fourth or fifth grade, nor to students with advanced learning disabilities... just as biology is often not addressed to kids in that position.
It also should not be taught as a subject within science courses, which I wholeheartedly agree should be devoted to understanding the field in question and not "meta" issues, or cutting edge minutiae.
If there is a time or resources crunch, then art and music should be out of the picture before logic. Art and music can be done (and often is done) outside of school. But I'm sure we can squeeze it in.
I do believe the only reason that it is being discussed here as a "high level" concept in science, or something that will confuse people, is because that is the bias of this culture given that people are not brought up understanding its ground level utility and inherent connection to science.
Philosophy (specifically logic and epistemology) is not the end or high reaches of science, it is the foundation. And it is very basic, just like the math we require in science (which is simply a form of symbolic logic).
In the meantime, come down off the horse.
I'll dismount as soon as I know the joust has ended. Do you yield, or shall we tilt some more?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by hitchy, posted 05-20-2005 1:11 AM hitchy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Jazzns, posted 05-20-2005 1:07 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 86 by hitchy, posted 05-23-2005 8:22 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 91 by hitchy, posted 05-25-2005 10:10 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 83 of 91 (210013)
05-20-2005 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Silent H
05-20-2005 6:13 AM


Re: The Full Biology Curriculum
I agree with nearly all of your posts regarding this issue except for this:
This does not have to be taught to people younger than the fourth or fifth grade, nor to students with advanced learning disabilities... just as biology is often not addressed to kids in that position.
I think that logic and knowledge theory should be integrated into teaching at all levels of education. Granted it shouldn't be taught in the same way that other subjects are taught early on.
Teacher: Okay class, before recess lets all open our Epistomology Primers to chapter 2.
I am thinking more on the lines of purposfully integrating it into lessons on math and science at the level the kids are ready to understand it.
As sad as it is to say, here I was with a degree in computer science with a minor in applied mathematics and I had no idea what the difference between a Definition, Theorem, Lemma, and Proposition. Granted, I used analogues in my field all the time but it was frustrating to feel so left behind when I took my first Galois Theory class in a masters program. I feel that these are basic things that should have been presented to me in some forms way back in high school or middle school. If I had understood them then I feel I would be much farther along now then I am.
This is probably more along the lines when you also think these things should be introduced. I just think it should be in an integrated way with the primary diciplines that use them and no skimping the 1st graders out of such an important part of education.
Certainly we cannot fix all of societies problems but maybe if we did this they may be one or two less kids in hitchy's class that didn't have a clue.

FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Silent H, posted 05-20-2005 6:13 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Silent H, posted 05-21-2005 6:56 AM Jazzns has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 84 of 91 (210161)
05-21-2005 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Jazzns
05-20-2005 1:07 PM


Re: The Full Biology Curriculum
Integration is fine in part. I guess I'd like to see it more within english classes, than in science courses (though they will be a part of the methdology of science). Once you start learning to put words together into sentences, they might want to start on the basics of how sentences get formed into meaning something.
I don't think terminology has to be so important as how it is applied. For example a teacher can instruct how to find hidden parts of an argument, and what problem it creates, and not have to deliver the exact philosophical term.
Then again, as soon as kids can learn algebra and the terms within that, they can certainly handle philosophical language. It just sounds weird now because no one is used to saying them.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Jazzns, posted 05-20-2005 1:07 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 85 of 91 (210392)
05-22-2005 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Modulous
05-19-2005 6:34 AM


Re: Criticism keeps science accurate
To think that ID's designer cannot use chemicals is only to recall that the intellgence forms the organ completely by academics of archetypical pasts. IF the circle however is the only form used in the blue-print one need not remand this false perspective on Paley's watch, that is the goal but not the means to the creation of such chemically.If indeed the difference of transverse and vertical lenticels is visually as said "watch" then tools will be built.
Chemistry WAS NOT being taught to me a Cornell in such a way that one could even "imagine" such combinations of circularities but chemistry with temporality inherent does.
see also
SUPRAMOLECULAR CHEMISTRY/SCIENCE Some CONJECTURES and PERSPECTIVES by J.-M. Lehn in "Supramolecular Science: Where It Is and Where It Is Going," pp287-304 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the the Netherlands.
I am suggesting that adapation of plants to
EvC Forum: The Philosophical implications of Darwinism/ID
1/2a cellulose is given by temporal chemistry of electric field inversions (say on the cycle of once a week and a half) and that 1/2c cellulose is given by daily changes in the opening and closing by gaurds of stomata and that these chemical pathways in time are minimized by Gladyshev's law such that the dielectric volume of as, cs, and 1/2 both can be phrased under the imaginary symbols of Maxwell electrotonics with respect to plant demes.
quote:
Summary of the Theory of the Electro-Tonic State.
We may conceive of the electro-tonic state at any point of space as a quantity determinate in magnitude and direction, and we may represent the electrotonic condition of a portion of space by any mechanical system which has at every point some quantity, which may be a velocity, a displacement, or a force, whose direction and magnitude correspond to those of the supposed electro-tonic state.
This representation involves no physical theory, it is only a kind of artifical notation. In analytical investigations we make use of the three components of the electro-tonic state, and call them electro-tonic functions.
by JCMaxwell "On Faraday's Lines of Force"
I,BSM will develop(if ontogeny presents any temporal information or if the atmosphere provides the clock only) phenomenological thermodynamics such that these functions are the specific parameters of the Gladyshev thermostat. This remands a (bio)physical theory where monohierarchies intersect the source and sinks of the electrotonic state itself on condition that supramolecualr self-assembly of cellulose dielectircs builds the ruputre of lenticels from under prior embryogenic stomata.
The theory thus coordinates weekly(storm front e-filed inversions concommittant with increased ground water) and daily cycles(of stoma opening for photosynthesis) of differences in three quatifications to a single Gibbs minimization of cellulose packing
during dipole fixation under a kinematic of an "external" applied e-field uniquely suseptible to selection artifical or otherwise.
I havent progressed to the point of the tool shop. These are NOT contradictory viewpoints. ID if/when it is working expands man's opportunities. It does not restrict the discussion to national preferneces in the history of biology & to call such writing as mine "philosophical" and not scientific really strains even the elasticity on my brief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Modulous, posted 05-19-2005 6:34 AM Modulous has not replied

  
hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 86 of 91 (210524)
05-23-2005 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Silent H
05-20-2005 6:13 AM


Re: The Full Biology Curriculum
I agree that I was "preachy" about the philosophy thing, but the ID stuff!?! ID is not science, so don't let it into science class. NO HORSE OR PULPIT IS NEEDED FOR THIS STATEMENT.
I have high expectations for my students. However, the level of expectation is different for each student. For some of my kids, a D is the best they can get in a regular education classroom. The higher the level (honors, regular, sp. ed.) the higher the expectations.
quote:
Emotional issues cloud every high school student and I feel that the impact of social withdrawl and lack of parental supervision and attention being felt by my students increases every year. You cannot divorce emotion from any interaction with high school students. It is impossible. You should try it!
So what we need is less education and more psychologists and social workers? I am not getting your point here. Either we can educate students and so try to do it, or we shouldn't. How this points to us trying to teach kids biology is beyond me.
For many of my students, unfortunately yes. They still need an education, but they need social/emotional help as well. Many of my failing students have social/emotional issues that stem from a variety of issues. These issues cloud everything they do. What I would suggest we need more of are at home counselors. A friend of mine does this. Basically she teaches parents how to be parents.
I am not saying we should not educate children. How you treat or deal with kids emotionally is the most important thing in high school!!! If the students don't like you or think you are being unfair, then they will do nothing. Kind of defeats the whole purpose of education if you make the students not want to learn or just give them more reasons to shut you and other educators out. More later...
This message has been edited by hitchy, 05-23-2005 08:29 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Silent H, posted 05-20-2005 6:13 AM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Brad McFall, posted 05-23-2005 8:50 AM hitchy has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 87 of 91 (210525)
05-23-2005 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Limbo
05-19-2005 5:30 AM


bump for limbo
A reply to messages #64 and #65 in this thread would be much appreciated, Limbo.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-23-2005 08:25 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Limbo, posted 05-19-2005 5:30 AM Limbo has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 88 of 91 (210528)
05-23-2005 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by hitchy
05-23-2005 8:22 AM


Re: The Full Biology Curriculum
I have not looked at all of your recent posts.
When you say "ID is not science" you only mean the present "intelligent" representation of ID, as it might be currently given to students, right?
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-23-2005 08:52 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by hitchy, posted 05-23-2005 8:22 AM hitchy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by hitchy, posted 05-25-2005 7:22 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 89 of 91 (211289)
05-25-2005 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Brad McFall
05-23-2005 8:50 AM


Re: The Full Biology Curriculum
When talking about ID, I am referring to the most recent attempt and what goes with it--irreducible complexity, specified complexity (complex specified information), the "explanatory filter", and so on--from the likes of Behe, Dembski, Johnson, etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Brad McFall, posted 05-23-2005 8:50 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Brad McFall, posted 05-25-2005 8:46 PM hitchy has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 90 of 91 (211300)
05-25-2005 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by hitchy
05-25-2005 7:22 PM


Re: The Full Biology Curriculum
Ok. I just wanted to make sure you werent against any future change that might make it possible to present a curriculum. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by hitchy, posted 05-25-2005 7:22 PM hitchy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024