Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-18-2019 11:29 AM
37 online now:
Aussie, GDR, JonF, kjsimons, ooh-child, PaulK, Percy (Admin), vimesey (8 members, 29 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 856,939 Year: 11,975/19,786 Month: 1,756/2,641 Week: 265/708 Day: 40/52 Hour: 5/16


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2345Next
Author Topic:   Do we talk up or down to fundies?
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 687 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 1 of 73 (395711)
04-17-2007 2:21 PM


Though similiar to the "teaching science to non-scientist" thread, I think this warrents a thread of its own.

The issue is this -
Frequently when trying to explain a scientific concept to a fundy, the thread will devolve into a series of nitpicking posts between two or more incredibly well versed science types.

Usually this is on some subtangent of the original thread, and as a result, the fundy who asked the original question is lead down increasingly more complicated threads in which people are arguing about minor points to which he's never been exposed.

My thought is, this HURTS the cause.

Our goal here, as a community, should be to either a) break down the false arguments presented by the anti-science religeous/political movement, or b) introduce those who've completely missed out on their science education to the key building blocks of this theory.

If a child asked about basic addition and subtraction, you wouldn't present them with a 400 page proof. You wouldn't make them sit through an arguement between two mathematicians about calc vs trig and the implications of sine. The child would be completely lost and would come away with the belief that the people talking couldn't agree about math.

How many times have we heard this false statement: "Even scientists can't agree about evolution." because of debate about steady state vs punctuated?

That is the mind set we are dealing with.

The question here:
Should we treat fundamentalists as though they've completely missed out on their education or should we treat them as though they were part way through their masters degree in bio-engineering?


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Modulous, posted 04-17-2007 4:57 PM Nuggin has responded
 Message 4 by obvious Child, posted 04-20-2007 10:47 PM Nuggin has responded
 Message 8 by Thugpreacha, posted 04-21-2007 7:25 AM Nuggin has not yet responded
 Message 25 by arachnophilia, posted 04-22-2007 2:41 AM Nuggin has responded
 Message 36 by Dr Jack, posted 04-23-2007 12:15 PM Nuggin has responded

    
AdminQuetzal
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 73 (395721)
04-17-2007 3:49 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 299 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 3 of 73 (395732)
04-17-2007 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
04-17-2007 2:21 PM


Usually this is on some subtangent of the original thread, and as a result, the fundy who asked the original question is lead down increasingly more complicated threads in which people are arguing about minor points to which he's never been exposed.

This is a question of thread structure. Should a thread be dedicated solely to discussion with its originator? Or, if someone comes along and says something that is inaccurate is it the duty of participants to correct the misunderstanding?

If somebody explains a concept incorrectly - I consider it important to correct that explanation.

I somebody tries to show a flaw in reasoning, which is itself wrong, I consider it important to point it out.

An example would be if somebody says 'Evolution isn't always considered gradual' - I think it important to point out that this is not scientific consensus. Otherwise the fundy will think that sometimes evolution is considered to not be gradual - which is an untruth. Our first duty here should be to the truth.

Our goal here, as a community, should be to either a) break down the false arguments presented by the anti-science religeous/political movement, or b) introduce those who've completely missed out on their science education to the key building blocks of this theory.

They are two fantastic goals that I support entirely. However, these should not be our only goals.

If a child asked about basic addition and subtraction, you wouldn't present them with a 400 page proof. You wouldn't make them sit through an arguement between two mathematicians about calc vs trig and the implications of sine. The child would be completely lost and would come away with the belief that the people talking couldn't agree about math.

Agreed. However if somebody said 'if we add something enough, we end up subracting it' - we should certainly call them on that, no? The medium does not allow us the luxury of controlling everything everbody says. Telling untruths to a child is bad.

The thing about forums is, it allows more than one discussion to occur in one thread and the reader is invited to read what he or she wishes. To the 'child' we can discuss basic principles of simple functions such as addition. If that child wants to try and follow the discussion about the axioms of these things - they are welcome to. Some children get such complex concepts. Some kids can't understand it and don't bother.

If we are talking about evolution, a fundy should be exposed to two facts about evolution. The basic simple concepts AND the idea that it is a VERY complex, subtle subject that takes YEARS of hard dedicated study to fully grasp. In fact, decades might be needed to come close to a full understanding of it.

Hiding this fact hurts the cause. Implying that the full entuire science of evolution is simple and straightforward is harmful to public understanding. We should start simple, but hiding more complex ideas serves no use whatsoever.

How many times have we heard this false statement: "Even scientists can't agree about evolution." because of debate about steady state vs punctuated?

That is the mind set we are dealing with.

I agree - and we should turn to one of your goals: break down the false arguments presented by the anti-science movement. Point out that there is no debate over the issue. The consensus is for gradualism which manifests as the appearance of punctuated equilibrium. That Darwin himself discussed punk eek, and that very very few people that understand the theory have ever held the notion of phyletic gradualism.

We should also point out another thing - so what? That scientists don't agree entirely with one another on the subtle points of models and theories should be something we openly celebrate. It is not unique to biology, it is a universal property of science. The whole system relies on peer criticism. If everybody always agreed with each other, there would be no need for review.

Should we treat fundamentalists as though they've completely missed out on their education or should we treat them as though they were part way through their masters degree in bio-engineering.

WE should show them the truth. We should start with the basics and work our way up. If they wish to read some more interesting debates that occur, they can. If they wish to be exposed to the subtle complications, to realize how much of the subject they are ignorant of, we should provide that opportunity.

I've seen it time and time again - condescension, patronising tones and the like. Fundies are ignorant, not necessarily stupid. Talking down to them is offensive and when they see the snide comments, insults, and superior tones - they don't learn anything but that 'evos' are disengenious.

Many fundies just want an argument and you will see good clear posts, educational and at the appropriate level are ignored in favour of the caustic posts. The caustic posts are easy to get the teeth into, and they reinforce what they have been taught about godless heathens.

Teaching people is not going to be an easy task in this medium. We should be open with the facts, we should be clear in expressing them. We do not control the level of understanding - some people have no clue and we should talk about the fundamentals with them. Some people know a bit more, and we should be able to discuss Gould's conceptions of species selection in contrast to Dawkin's reductionist conceptions. Some people are very fluent in the subject and we should be able to talk about the effects of mutations in THRM and what happens if someone is heterozygous with this mutant allele (increased risk of myocardial infarction) and what happens when there are protein C deficiencies...

This forum should not just be serving the function of discussing biology at the high school level. We should be free to discuss higher level biology with one another, without fear of being criticized for harming some unrelated cause.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 04-17-2007 2:21 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Nuggin, posted 04-21-2007 3:29 AM Modulous has responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2310 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 4 of 73 (396577)
04-20-2007 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
04-17-2007 2:21 PM


quote:

Should we treat fundamentalists as though they've completely missed out on their education or should we treat them as though they were part way through their masters degree in bio-engineering?

Why can't you do both? By engaging in a highly educated manner would implicitly show to creationists that they don't know jack, that they have missed out on their educations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 04-17-2007 2:21 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Nuggin, posted 04-21-2007 3:35 AM obvious Child has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 687 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 5 of 73 (396597)
04-21-2007 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Modulous
04-17-2007 4:57 PM


Didn't realize you'd replied
Sorry I didn't get back to this sooner, I totally missed it. It's only because of another reply that I saw this.

If somebody explains a concept incorrectly - I consider it important to correct that explanation.

Here's the thing. If someone writes "Only frogs have DNA", then yes, it's important that we correct them on it, since it's clearly wrong. However, if someone writes "Gene xyz12 is only found in frogs" we don't need get into an 8 post string about how some South American tree frogs don't have xyz123 or how toads should have it but don't, followed by a 3 post thread on how toads and frogs are different, etc.

If the original point was tadpoles and frogs both have xyz123, going down all the different nitpicky arguements isn't going to help convey the concept to the fundy. It's just going to look like a bunch of nerds can't agree on what is a frog.

a fundy should be exposed to two facts about evolution. The basic simple concepts AND the idea that it is a VERY complex, subtle subject that takes YEARS of hard dedicated study to fully grasp.

You are making a major assumption here. You assume that Fundies have the same thought processes which you or I have. They do not.

You've seen it time and again on the boards, and it usually looks like this:
A fundy posts someting ridiculous. We respond with why it's ridiculous. Fundy denies our position. We give a complicated scientific example to show the flaw in the fundy's thinking. The fundy responds with a bare link to AiG.

That last step is KEY.

Here's what happens in our minds - "Hrmm, I don't understand what he's saying. Let me take a look at it and ask a probing question about one of the pieces."

Here's what happens in the Fundy mind - "Hrmm, I don't understand what he's saying, I'm going to let someone else do my thinking."

The entire premise of the Fundamentalist argument boils down to "Someone else already figured it out and told me, so I don't have to think about it."

Giving them "big boy" science just hurts their heads and makes them fall back to "someone else's" answers.

The only way we're going to make any progress is to lead them by the hand through simple real life analogies, showing them the errors in their paradigm.

We don't need them to look at the full picture of Evolution and say "Okay, I get it now." They CAN'T get it. Not until they can first look at Creationism and go "Hey, wait, this and that doesn't make any sense."

Only when they have broken free of one paradigm can they accept a new one.

That scientists don't agree entirely with one another

I'm not suggesting we pretend that we do. What I'm saying is, we should pay attention to the audience.

Look, most of the guys/girls here are very bright. Very bright people like nuance. We can argue infinitely about sub-sub-sub-sub-issues within a field. It's how we show off our vast stores of knowledge.

The problem is, to outsiders it's all gibberish.

So, I think we should all (me included) try and pay more attention to explaining stuff to the Fundies in simple terms and less attention to who knows more about archaeic fungi or non-mammalian reproduction.

This forum should not just be serving the function of discussing biology at the high school level. We should be free to discuss higher level biology with one another, without fear of being criticized for harming some unrelated cause.

This is a fine notion. And on some of the more essoteric threads, it's fine. But when we get into itty bitty nitty gritty recom-dna on a thread like "How many animals on the Arc" we definitely aren't helping the overall arguement.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Modulous, posted 04-17-2007 4:57 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Modulous, posted 04-21-2007 7:18 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

    
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 687 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 6 of 73 (396598)
04-21-2007 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by obvious Child
04-20-2007 10:47 PM


show to creationists that they don't know jack

The problem is they don't WANT to know Jack. As I was saying in the other response I just posted - they want the answers handed to them so they don't have to think for themselves.

This is evident from the constant tendancy for the Fundies to simply reply with a bare link to AiG etc.

If they could think for themselves, there'd be no one on the boards to argue with since we'd all already be in agreement.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by obvious Child, posted 04-20-2007 10:47 PM obvious Child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by obvious Child, posted 04-21-2007 4:04 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 299 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 7 of 73 (396605)
04-21-2007 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Nuggin
04-21-2007 3:29 AM


It seems then, we basically agree
Sorry I didn't get back to this sooner, I totally missed it. It's only because of another reply that I saw this.

Snow problem!

Here's the thing. If someone writes "Only frogs have DNA", then yes, it's important that we correct them on it, since it's clearly wrong. However, if someone writes "Gene xyz12 is only found in frogs" we don't need get into an 8 post string about how some South American tree frogs don't have xyz123 or how toads should have it but don't, followed by a 3 post thread on how toads and frogs are different, etc.

If the original point was tadpoles and frogs both have xyz123, going down all the different nitpicky arguements isn't going to help convey the concept to the fundy. It's just going to look like a bunch of nerds can't agree on what is a frog.

I agree. Such an issue is best dealt with by saying 'That's a bit of a simplification, since there are exceptions, but it is generally true.' - on a point like that I would probably let it slide since it seems like such a weak point to make.

You are making a major assumption here. You assume that Fundies have the same thought processes which you or I have. They do not.

A fundy does think differently, no doubt. However, in order for a fundy to ever have a hope of changing how they think - they must be exposed to different schools of thought. We cannot make science out to be a competitive religion with theirs since it will always lose.

The entire premise of the Fundamentalist argument boils down to "Someone else already figured it out and told me, so I don't have to think about it."

If you thought the situation were that terminal - why would you bother talking to them in the first place? I only do it, because I have seen concessions and conversions. It takes a great deal of patience, and a gift at explaining. You have to realize that you cannot talk to the fundy, but you have to talk to the voices of doubt that may only be subconcsiously present.

Giving them "big boy" science just hurts their heads and makes them fall back to "someone else's" answers.

Of course it does! It depends on what we are discussing. If it is a simple point, we Keep It Simple, Stupid. If they are trying to say something incredibally complex to prove evolution wrong, we show them that the subject is more complex than a brief scan of Wingnut Daily. The headache serves it's purposes sometimes, not always, but we have to have hope otherwise we spend hours typing out thousands of posts for what?

The only way we're going to make any progress is to lead them by the hand through simple real life analogies, showing them the errors in their paradigm.

I agree entirely. If someone says the earth is flat, there is no point in trying to prove it wrong to them using cosmological models of planetary formations with relativistic maths of how gravity effects large bodies.

However if:

1) Someone comes in and attempts to use a high level explanation that is wrong, we have a duty to correct them - confusing fundies with contradictory and falsifiable information will place them against us as peddler's of falsity.

2) A fundy comes in and tries to prove evolution wrong using a specific and complex topic (such as the flaggellum), we have to respond with the the full complexities of the topic in order to show that said fundy does not understand it and hopefully they will come to realize this eventually.

I'm not suggesting we pretend that we do. What I'm saying is, we should pay attention to the audience.

Look, most of the guys/girls here are very bright. Very bright people like nuance. We can argue infinitely about sub-sub-sub-sub-issues within a field. It's how we show off our vast stores of knowledge.

The problem is, to outsiders it's all gibberish.

So, I think we should all (me included) try and pay more attention to explaining stuff to the Fundies in simple terms and less attention to who knows more about archaeic fungi or non-mammalian reproduction.

In this we agree entirely. We should pay in mind our audience. However, our audience isn't just fundies who have no clue whatsoever. There are fundies who have more clue than that, and some people we debate with are not fundies but are still antievolution. We need to speak with them - indeed they are the best hope we have of getting through to.

This is a fine notion. And on some of the more essoteric threads, it's fine. But when we get into itty bitty nitty gritty recom-dna on a thread like "How many animals on the Arc" we definitely aren't helping the overall arguement.

I agree on that. I certainly wouldn't bring up minutae on a thread like that unless someone decided to fallaciously demonstrate that the Ark could hold only a few animals and have the resulting diversity using some misunderstanding of nitty gritty recom-dna technicality..


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Nuggin, posted 04-21-2007 3:29 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Quetzal, posted 04-21-2007 10:26 AM Modulous has not yet responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12577
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 8 of 73 (396606)
04-21-2007 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
04-17-2007 2:21 PM


Talking Bout My G-G-Generalization
Nuggin writes:


Should we treat fundamentalists as though they've completely missed out on their education or should we treat them as though they were part way through their masters degree in bio-engineering?

I dunno...would you want fundies to talk down to you and patiently explain that taking a fundamental stand on a belief can be thought of as more courageous than remaining so critically open minded that you never believe anything?(and only conclude that humans have not yet found an answer)

I see what you mean concerning science, however. I say talk down to the Fundies. Explain the science to them as if they were fifth graders.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 04-17-2007 2:21 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 04-21-2007 10:32 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4067 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 9 of 73 (396619)
04-21-2007 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Modulous
04-21-2007 7:18 AM


Re: It seems then, we basically agree
2) A fundy comes in and tries to prove evolution wrong using a specific and complex topic (such as the flaggellum), we have to respond with the the full complexities of the topic in order to show that said fundy does not understand it and hopefully they will come to realize this eventually.

Although I agree with a lot of what Nuggins says, I think you have put your finger on the key problem I have with his overall argument. As the fundies have been consistently defeated over time, their arguments have become more "refined". As little as 20 years ago, almost all the arguments they broached against the ToE were of the "evilution is false because my dog doesn't give birth to a cat" variety. Simplistic arguments that are easily defeated by simple responses. Some creos are still using that level (e.g., Hovind, Baugh, etc). However, when a fundy cribs a short one-line quote from a creo website concerning something like polonium halos refute an old earth, or multiple annual growth rings, or statements like:

quote:
Darwinian evolutionists suppose that extrinsic factors, such as starvation, disease, and predation are responsible for the maintenance of population sizes, and thus lead to natural selection of variants more resistant to these factors, eventually giving rise to new species, and so on, up the evolutionary scale. If it could be shown that organisms possess some intrinsic self-regulating mechanism that controls population sizes, this would weaken the Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis. (from here)
even if they don't understand the question, the response requires a nearly book-length, technical explanation of why the basic premise is false. Not to mention an overtly simple statement like the bacterial flagellum quip you noted. That's in large measure why the Gish Gallop is so effective.

The fundies these days are dragging up really esoteric points. They've learned from creo websites to demand peer-reviewed articles (because that's what we've been asking them for all these years) to support our points. I agree with Nuggins that they'll never understand the responses, but that's not their objective. Take a look at the sophistication of arguments on AiG, for instance. They're all hopelessly wrong, of course, but how easy is it to explain in simple terms why?

Edited by Quetzal, : fixed ubb code


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Modulous, posted 04-21-2007 7:18 AM Modulous has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31065
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 10 of 73 (396620)
04-21-2007 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Thugpreacha
04-21-2007 7:25 AM


Re: Talking Bout My G-G-Generalization
bio-engineering?
I dunno...would you want fundies to talk down to you and patiently explain that taking a fundamental stand on a belief can be thought of as more courageous than remaining so critically open minded that you never believe anything?(and only conclude that humans have not yet found an answer)

I would love to see them try. Unfortunately, that seldom happens and when I can get them to try to explain beyond the simple sound bite, they get nervous and seem to fade away.

Maybe once they try to actually explain their belief instead of simply parroting a mantra they begin to see that there is no substance to just taking a fundamental stand?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Thugpreacha, posted 04-21-2007 7:25 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Trae, posted 04-22-2007 3:50 AM jar has responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2310 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 11 of 73 (396664)
04-21-2007 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Nuggin
04-21-2007 3:35 AM


quote:
The problem is they don't WANT to know Jack. As I was saying in the other response I just posted - they want the answers handed to them so they don't have to think for themselves.

Then there is no real point in talking to them. You cannot convince someone who is not at least open to suggestion. Intelligence is the ability to entertain a idea without accepting it. If they lack that basic trait, there's no point in discussing things they disagree with.

quote:
This is evident from the constant tendancy for the Fundies to simply reply with a bare link to AiG etc.

I think those people are the ones without educations. I know a fair amount of creationists who see AiG as a mockery of their religion. They also have educations and believe in theistic evolution. But if one is not willing to learn, then are doomed to forever hold the same beliefs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Nuggin, posted 04-21-2007 3:35 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by ringo, posted 04-21-2007 4:23 PM obvious Child has responded
 Message 13 by jar, posted 04-21-2007 4:48 PM obvious Child has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16817
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 12 of 73 (396666)
04-21-2007 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by obvious Child
04-21-2007 4:04 PM


obvious child writes:

Then there is no real point in talking to them. You cannot convince someone who is not at least open to suggestion.

The point isn't to convince them - it's to stop them from convincing others. If we allow them to prattle on about even the stupidest ideas, some poor person who knows even less might be fooled.


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by obvious Child, posted 04-21-2007 4:04 PM obvious Child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by obvious Child, posted 04-21-2007 6:16 PM ringo has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31065
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 13 of 73 (396670)
04-21-2007 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by obvious Child
04-21-2007 4:04 PM


Learning is a "Learned skill"
But if one is not willing to learn, then are doomed to forever hold the same beliefs.

True but ...

Learning how to learn is actually something often neglected. All too often what happens is the simple presentation of facts to be memorized. This forms the basis of most of what the Christian Cult of Ignorance does and in particular, sources like AIG.

We do a lousy job of teaching folk how to learn. We do even worse in encouraging them to practice that skill. We do not teach folk how to test, how to discriminate, how to question, challenge and to think critically about issues.

Part of any effort needs to go to the basic skills, towards educating folk on "How to learn" as well as "What to learn."


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by obvious Child, posted 04-21-2007 4:04 PM obvious Child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by obvious Child, posted 04-21-2007 6:19 PM jar has responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2310 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 14 of 73 (396682)
04-21-2007 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by ringo
04-21-2007 4:23 PM


quote:
The point isn't to convince them - it's to stop them from convincing others. If we allow them to prattle on about even the stupidest ideas, some poor person who knows even less might be fooled.

But that's not really a problem here. For us to do what you intend would require us to follow them around. I don't see that as a feasible proposal given that many creationists go on many different boards.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by ringo, posted 04-21-2007 4:23 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by ringo, posted 04-21-2007 8:22 PM obvious Child has responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2310 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 15 of 73 (396685)
04-21-2007 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by jar
04-21-2007 4:48 PM


Re: Learning is a "Learned skill"
quote:
Learning how to learn is actually something often neglected. All too often what happens is the simple presentation of facts to be memorized. This forms the basis of most of what the Christian Cult of Ignorance does and in particular, sources like AIG.

So how do you fix this? Can it be fixed?

quote:
We do a lousy job of teaching folk how to learn. We do even worse in encouraging them to practice that skill.

We as in this site or we as the education system of America?

quote:
We do not teach folk how to test, how to discriminate, how to question, challenge and to think critically about issues.

How do you do this when their previous education has failed them and they have turned to something that is the anti-thesis of testing, discrimination, challenge and critical thinking?

We have people who think that God creating light after plants is totally not retarded. I'm not sure how to deal with someone like that.

quote:
Part of any effort needs to go to the basic skills, towards educating folk on "How to learn" as well as "What to learn."

Can this be done here?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 04-21-2007 4:48 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 04-21-2007 6:55 PM obvious Child has responded

  
1
2345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019