Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 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:   Negative Impacts on Society
hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 1 of 222 (89078)
02-27-2004 3:18 PM


From the recent events happenning in Ohio, Oklahoma and Georgia, I think now would be a good time for us to discuss the negative impacts on society that can and have occurred when governments attempt to "educate" society with a political platform instead of real science.
For instance, the Leyshanko affair in Soviet Russia was at least partially responsible for the starvation deaths of millions of people.
Political ideas did away with genetics and Darwinian evolution b/c these ideas were not "communist" like Lamarkism. Political and religious idealogies are not science. Even worse, anti-science ideas proferred by politicians to the public at large only increase ignorance of the one thing that keeps us from being a third world country--our technology. By watering down or misrepresenting certain areas of science education, politicians harm their constituents instead of helping them. Just look at Soviet grain production in the 1950's and 60's!?!
Anyone else want to join in?
One more thing, if you haven't heard about the Oklahoma disclaimer bill, some state politico inserted an amendment for the disclaimer into a bill that would allow school systems to buy materials that would aid in the education of blind children and adults!!! WTF!?!

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Tamara, posted 02-27-2004 5:15 PM hitchy has replied
 Message 13 by RAZD, posted 03-23-2004 4:09 PM hitchy has not replied
 Message 16 by Syamsu, posted 03-24-2004 3:38 AM hitchy has not replied
 Message 98 by Buzsaw, posted 04-13-2004 11:00 AM hitchy has replied
 Message 142 by redwolf, posted 04-20-2004 12:02 PM hitchy has not replied

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


Message 4 of 222 (89123)
02-27-2004 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Tamara
02-27-2004 5:15 PM


Oops...
Sorry about the mistake. Anyway, negative impacts?
Also, sorry if you had a bad science education. Hindsight being 20/20 eventually convinces you that everything you've done or been exposed to in the past could have been better. Sorry if we are not doing a great job. So much to do and so little time. Adding other BS, like textbook disclaimers, only adds to the problems. Sometimes I will hear "why do we have to learn this?" from a student. I cannot wait to see the day one of my students says, "hey, we don't have to learn this! It says so right here inside our textbook."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Tamara, posted 02-27-2004 5:15 PM Tamara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Tamara, posted 02-27-2004 7:22 PM hitchy has replied

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


Message 7 of 222 (89563)
03-01-2004 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tamara
02-27-2004 7:22 PM


Re: lure'em in...
Cures for what ails ya!?! Well, we could raise public awareness and badger our politicians about the differences btwn good science and bad science and crap. I think one of the major roadblocks to science education is the overall feeling of anti-intellectualism in our country. These textbook disclaimers are found in southern states and the midwest. I wonder where the bible belt starts, ends adn buckles? People are also interested in what they perceive as easy. Look at how many times you have done something just well enough to get by. You probably did it, you just didn't put into it what you should have. Now, let's realize that that is around the norm, in general, in our country. People perceive science as too hard or too geeky or those scientists are braniac know-it-alls that you don't want to know. Comments...I would write more but I have a class. Thanks for listening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Tamara, posted 02-27-2004 7:22 PM Tamara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-23-2004 5:53 AM hitchy has not replied

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


Message 72 of 222 (98099)
04-06-2004 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by DC85
03-28-2004 9:09 PM


Sorry to hear about your high school...
Sorry to hear that you had very little evolution in high school. Myself and the three other biology teachers spend between 3 and 4 weeks on evolution and natural selection. Our state assessment for biology covers evolution/natural selection also, so we definitely have to prepare for it.
The national standards say that evolution needs to be taught. I cannot see why it wouldn't be taken seriously by any scientifically minded teachers. If a teacher has a problem with teaching evolution then he/she should stay out of teaching biology! They definitely shouldn't lie or distort the actual hard scientific evidence based on personal prejudices.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by DC85, posted 03-28-2004 9:09 PM DC85 has not replied

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


Message 73 of 222 (98129)
04-06-2004 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Servant2thecause
04-05-2004 2:52 AM


What?
quote:
So you're saying, the reason the theory of evolution is true is because of the fact that it is the simplest method of explaining the evidence we see?
No one is saying this! The best theory is the one that makes the most sense based on the evidence and makes the least amount of assumptions and inferences. If someone says it is the simplest explanation, it means that the evidences speak more for themselves than you have to.
quote:
How about a different approach: let's assume the Flood of Noah actually happend (~5000 yrs ago)...
This is an example of too much inference against the evidence. None of the evidence for the time period 5000 years ago points to a worldwide flood. Any evidence that could be used to support a worldwide flood could be better explained otherwise. That is what we mean by a "simpler" explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Servant2thecause, posted 04-05-2004 2:52 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by nator, posted 04-06-2004 5:16 PM hitchy has not replied
 Message 76 by Brad McFall, posted 04-06-2004 7:46 PM hitchy has not replied

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


Message 102 of 222 (99935)
04-14-2004 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Buzsaw
04-13-2004 11:00 AM


Not creationism, but political interference...
...will lead us into the company of less developed nations. We already are behind most of the industrialized world in math and science education. Gov't interference with science is counter-productive. Our country relies on technology and science to keep everything going and to keep our growing and aging population alive and somewhat functioning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Buzsaw, posted 04-13-2004 11:00 AM Buzsaw has not replied

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


Message 158 of 222 (102148)
04-23-2004 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by kofh2u
04-22-2004 6:55 PM


Re: Science taught?
quote:
I presume you mean that we do not teach the application of the Scientific Method as a tool by which to add more understanding about things we study.
In the Maryland state curriculum which is followed by every school in the state, using the scientific method and applying it to novel situations (novel for the students anyway) is required and the MSDE provides opportunities for science teachers to input new ideas into the system every year. In fact, the essay questions I help develop and test for the state HSA and public release practice HSA every summer have to involve using the scientific method in relation to one of the other indicators of learning (i.e. mitosis, cellular transport, osmosis, molecular genetics, natural selection, etc.).
quote:
One big step in the right direction has been Dr Howard Gardner. His "Multiple Intelligences" have reached the ears of the educators. But, they do not know how to apply it,...
they are not sure what it is,...
they can not get it going in the classroom...
they have the keys... seven keys...
they can not or will not enter into the Temple of Real Education, bowever, and their adminstrators and "leaders" in the Ivory Temples of the Teaching Colleges won't let anyone else do that job, because its, embarrassingly, their job... and THEY can't do it.
I am not an expert on multiple intelligences, but we use various ways to help all of our students. Our county has just implemented small learning communities for incoming 6th and 9th graders. As a teacher for our Ninth Grade Academy, I can tell you that myself and the other 15 teachers in the Academy do everything we can together to help our students be successful. We use the info from Multiple Intelligences and the 5-E model everyday to try and reach our students. Saying that our administrators and college educators don't want to admit that they cannot do their job is crap. I am a product of the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education. I graduated from IUP with teaching degrees in biology and general science. I can tell you that I was exposed to so much stuff concerning pedagogy that I had to stand back and decide exactly how I wanted to integrate everything I learned into my teaching style.
One question, are you a teacher or a recent high school/college student? I can say that the old mentality of "I don't have to change my teaching style in order to reach my students, they have to change to understand me" is gone. I, personally, change things from day to day and class period to class period based on who I have and what is going on in the community at that time. I find that the teachers I work with here in the biology dept. are constantly adapting their teaching styles on a period to period and day to day basis, also. We have to. Science, especially biology, changes everyday. So do we.
One change that are not going to make, however, is riding down that slippery slope to creationism through intelligent design. I started this thread to try to show how political and religious interference with what is taught in science has negative consequences not only for the scientific community, but the population at large. When state gov't's have to try to pass state laws or interfer with their boards of education in order to get something included or excluded in their state science curriculum, something is wrong. Why have a board of education if you can bully the people who develop the standards?
Just sit back, listen to your lobbyists and do what you have to do to get re-elected. If that means f-ing up science education in order to appease those constituents that are making decisions based on emotion instead of reason, go for it. Just be ready for the mess it creates down the road.
One situation before class starts...
In 1957, the Soviets sent Sputnik into orbit. Everyone in the US panicked and screamed aloud "How could we let this happen? We should have been up their first." How did the Soviets beat us to space? Not b/c they were atheists (most of the population was Russian Orthodox anyway). Not b/c they had a better grasp on science in general than we did (we had states banning the teaching of evolution, however the Soviets weren't using modern genetics and evolution at all). It was b/c we were more concerned with the retaining the "soul" of our christian-based country against the throngs of godless communists than furthering our scientific and technological horizons. Sure we were making advances, but the overall stagnation of science education in public high schools was rediculous. "One nation under God" right?
{following added by edit}
Now some people are trying to get the "under God" addition taken out of the pledge we use in school everyday. So many people are for keeping it in that those who want it out are labeled as nutcases and atheists and uberliberals. The fact of the matter is that those two words violate the first amendment regardless of your religious preference (which, by the way is protected by the first amendment also). Time for class...
[This message has been edited by hitchy, 04-23-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by kofh2u, posted 04-22-2004 6:55 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by kofh2u, posted 04-23-2004 11:10 AM 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