Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do the flaws in education discredit the discpline being taught?
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 1 of 41 (264791)
12-01-2005 4:08 PM


Randman (and in the past others) have said that because 'overstatements' 'misrepresentations' 'lies', and 'fraud' have made it into the school textbooks (or been taught by teachers, made it into documentaries etc etc), it discredits the discipline (ie evolutionary biology). Whether or not these things are misrepresentations (et al) is not a major element to this debate, but rather whether or not this standard should be applied to other subjects:
When I was in school I was taught:
That people in the 15th Century thought the earth was flat, that Christopher Columbus proved them wrong, and that he was the first to America: This is clearly false, Eratosthenes calculated the circumferance of the earth about 200 years before Christ was born. People did get to America before Columbus.
Does this clearly false representation discredit the discipline of 15th century (and before) history?
So, this topic should cover two things.
1. Any other examples of things we were taught at school, which scholars of the subject knew (at the time) were inaccurate, grossly wrong, or similar.
2. Does this education issue reflect badly on the scholars of the discipline being taught. Is it indicative of a conspiracy, or a cover up or propaganda or anything, or is there a more benign explanation?
This message has been edited by Modulous, Thu, 01-December-2005 09:24 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminWounded, posted 12-01-2005 4:15 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 5 by Wounded King, posted 12-01-2005 4:30 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 7 by randman, posted 12-01-2005 5:05 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 10 by jar, posted 12-01-2005 6:45 PM Modulous has not replied
 Message 12 by nwr, posted 12-01-2005 9:41 PM Modulous has not replied
 Message 14 by RobertFitz, posted 12-02-2005 4:46 AM Modulous has replied
 Message 15 by Wounded King, posted 12-02-2005 5:12 AM Modulous has not replied
 Message 32 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-04-2005 1:11 AM Modulous has not replied

  
AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 41 (264794)
12-01-2005 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
12-01-2005 4:08 PM


This seems like a pretty interesting topic. Did you have any particular feelings as to a forum, I would have thought either the 'Education..' or 'Is it science' forum would be most suitable.
I think there is a typo in your first numbered point new -> knew.
TTFN,
AW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 12-01-2005 4:08 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Modulous, posted 12-01-2005 4:25 PM AdminWounded has not replied

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


Message 3 of 41 (264798)
12-01-2005 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminWounded
12-01-2005 4:15 PM


cheers for the typo alert.
I reckon that Education is the best bet, since I'd like to include any education discipline rather than just science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminWounded, posted 12-01-2005 4:15 PM AdminWounded has not replied

  
AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 41 (264801)
12-01-2005 4:26 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 5 of 41 (264803)
12-01-2005 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
12-01-2005 4:08 PM


The most obvious example that comes to my mind is the Bohr atom. This is still a standard in many phsyics and even chemistry textbooks, or at least it was while I was at school.
The model is widely recognised as an inaccurate, possibly even misleading, representation of an atom. Of course that doesn't stop it being an immensely informative model for explaining any number of features of the atom.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 12-01-2005 4:08 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Modulous, posted 12-01-2005 5:03 PM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 11 by robinrohan, posted 12-01-2005 8:43 PM Wounded King has not replied

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


Message 6 of 41 (264817)
12-01-2005 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Wounded King
12-01-2005 4:30 PM


Bohr Atom
The most obvious example that comes to my mind is the Bohr atom.
Good one! The amount of people I knew who had a hard time when they took up A-Level chemistry is astonishing. One of the big problems they had was the fact the Bohr model was basically thrown out the window.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Wounded King, posted 12-01-2005 4:30 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 7 of 41 (264819)
12-01-2005 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
12-01-2005 4:08 PM


Yea, I think it does some.
The reason is students are exposed to an incredible level of material pushing evolution as virtually an established fact from the time they are toddlers for the rest of their lives.
There is very little or next to no criticism ever presented, unless they watch or read some creationist or ID material.
So from popular culture, and then reinforced from middle school, high school and into college, they are taught a set of "proofs" for evolution. Wells did well, imo, to call these "proofs" the icons of evolution.
So the basic paradigm has been pushed via indoctrination and based often on faulty evidentiary claims. I would say the media and educational messages involved with evolution constitute the largest and most intense media propaganda and indoctrination campaign, if you want to look at it that way, in the history of mankind to date. So the student of science, by the time he gets to a higher level, is faced with a group of people so indoctrinated into the idea ToE is essentially a fact no reasonable person can disagree with, that it doesn't even matter to most if the evidentiary claims are now shown to have been exagerrated.
In a very real sense, the presentation of ToE is sort of an unscripted brainwashing multi-media effort that not surprisingly makes objective analysis very difficult, imo.
In other words, the paradigm has been set, and so although plenty of disagreement is allowed within the existing paradigm of ToE, no dissent is allowed without severe repercussions of the basic paradigm itself.
This message has been edited by randman, 12-01-2005 05:07 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 12-01-2005 4:08 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Wounded King, posted 12-01-2005 5:53 PM randman has not replied
 Message 9 by Modulous, posted 12-01-2005 5:57 PM randman has not replied
 Message 16 by RobertFitz, posted 12-02-2005 5:23 AM randman has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 8 of 41 (264848)
12-01-2005 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by randman
12-01-2005 5:05 PM


Re: Yea, I think it does some.
What part of 'other subjects' did you not understand?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by randman, posted 12-01-2005 5:05 PM randman has not replied

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


Message 9 of 41 (264849)
12-01-2005 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by randman
12-01-2005 5:05 PM


Re: Yea, I think it does some.
OK. So how does this differ from, for example: the flat earth fallacy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by randman, posted 12-01-2005 5:05 PM randman has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 10 of 41 (264868)
12-01-2005 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
12-01-2005 4:08 PM


Perhaps, but not in science.
I think that it is very important to separate science from most other areas of education. In science, the basic knowledge base, and thus the half-life of knowledge is contantly changing. It is inevitable, particularly during the earliest phases of teaching a subject where many things are simplified to ease introduction, and when looking at the state-of-the-art where the knowledge base is being expanded, that there will be errors.
But... this is also one of the greatest strengths of science. Unlike religion, science has a builtin correction method. It is the publish, review, replicate and independant verification process that is the hallmark of science.
Many other areas, for example history, really do have many flaws. Those flaws though usually stem from a parochial viewpoint during the teaching process. Unlike science, instruction is history really sucks. Speaking primarily of US public schools, we do a lousy job of teaching where we failed in the past. The result is that we continue to make the same mistakes over and over again.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 12-01-2005 4:08 PM Modulous has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 41 (264895)
12-01-2005 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Wounded King
12-01-2005 4:30 PM


The model is widely recognised as an inaccurate, possibly even misleading, representation of an atom. Of course that doesn't stop it being an immensely informative model for explaining any number of features of the atom.
I think the example you've given here is illustrative of a general pedagogical truth, that to teach something you have to simplify, and simplification is misleading. Nonetheless, the simplification has enough of a kernal of truth to be very helpful to the student.
Another thing you have to do to teach something is to methodize it.
Now if you are teaching a certain skill that is not conducive to methodization, you are going to end up actually falsifying to beginners the actual way that people who are skilled in the subject go about their business. My example is the teaching of writing. I teach it. I have to methodize. That's a falsification.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-01-2005 07:44 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Wounded King, posted 12-01-2005 4:30 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 12 of 41 (264913)
12-01-2005 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
12-01-2005 4:08 PM


Virtual storage
1. Any other examples of things we were taught at school, which scholars of the subject knew (at the time) were inaccurate, grossly wrong, or similar.
Interesting that you bring this up.
I'm just finishing an Operating Systems class (as teacher). When discussing virtual storage, I gave a greatly over-simplified account.
I did make it clear that it was oversimplified. And I did later come back and correct it.
The reason was that I wanted to concentrate on memory management, and not get tied down to hardware details.
It seems to me that it is often good pedagogical strategy to simplify some parts, and exaggerate others, when the aim is concept teaching rather than skills mastery.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 12-01-2005 4:08 PM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Wounded King, posted 12-02-2005 2:34 AM nwr has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 13 of 41 (264946)
12-02-2005 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by nwr
12-01-2005 9:41 PM


Re: Virtual storage
Do you really mean exaggerate? Could you give an example?
I can see the benefit of focusing very narrowly on something but I'm not sure what one could justifiably exaggerate except perhaps for the importance of a paticular topic.
TTFN,
wK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by nwr, posted 12-01-2005 9:41 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by nwr, posted 12-02-2005 2:27 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
RobertFitz
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 41 (264958)
12-02-2005 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
12-01-2005 4:08 PM


Hi Modulous
As a teacher I think that you are overstating the fact that we may be guilty of a vast institutionalized conspiracy. Surely in todays world you have to consider that we are learning many new things, which will always need to be updated, especially in the sciences. As to the 15th centaury, the only history book most people in Europe had was the bible, which was accepted as entirely true, as were a wide range of legends and folklore. Things have changed, and so has what we teach today.
Also I would take issue with your initial statement citing flaws in education. More correctly it should be flaws/ gaps in the knowlege that we teach, which we all strive to amend. In consequence we who teach, pass on knowledge which enables other more brilliant minds to expand the borders of human achievement and knowledge.
But to answer your question, no, how it can it discredit any discipline, as long as that discipline is willing to change along with what we learn.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 12-01-2005 4:08 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Modulous, posted 12-02-2005 7:59 AM RobertFitz has replied
 Message 18 by Dr Jack, posted 12-02-2005 8:29 AM RobertFitz has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 15 of 41 (264961)
12-02-2005 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
12-01-2005 4:08 PM


I think that it is not a problem for the disciplines standing. What is taught has been through the mill of digestion of the various processes involved in developing a standardised curriculum for young minds, it iis not representative of the academic research communities latest findings or even extant paradigms.
Certainly if all that is done is to teach 'facts' by rote then if these facts are incorrect the student will have absolutely no worthwhile grounding for study at the level of higher education, and indeed many universities already claim this is the case and that their 1st years often have to be taught how to approach a topic virtually from scratch. So the probelm for the disciplines is a rather ill-informed and ill-prepared pool of students from which the next generation of researchers must be drawn.
If on the other hand what is being taught is a methodology and an approach to research and critical analysis of various sources then the actual 'facts' are relatively unimportant, as the student will be adequately equipped to re-evaluate them in the light of new evidence. I fear that this is rarely how teaching is approached in primary or secondary education however.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 12-01-2005 4:08 PM Modulous 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