An educational angle we all could live with? (Philosophy of Science)

In regard to your idea of discussing the philosophy of science (biology) in a high school biology class (or any class in which you teach evolution, I guess), I cannot agree that inserting philosophy into the h.s. science curriculum of a specific class is a good idea. As a high school biology teacher, I see many levels of students every day. From special education/ IEP to honors students who are most likely too smart for my class. I have to change how I get the curriculum across to my students on a daily basis, and in some classes, I have to change stuff period by period to accommodate my diverse group of learners. Inserting a unit on the philosophy of science would merely take up more time that could be spent better on other units such as genetics and, of course, evolution.Most of my students are in the concrete operational stage of learning. There is no way they would get anything from a misplaced attempt at teaching philosophy. Why do you think most high schools don't even have a philosophy elective for upper-classmen? They are not at the mental level required to fully comprehend lessons in metaphysics and epistemology!Now, you could say that if they were taught philosophy earlier in education, they would be more "mentally" advanced in high school and able to discuss philosophy in a biology class. Try to fit that in to a state's curriculum! By focusing on one major thing--philosophy--other things, such as art and music (and some of my brightest bio students are very gifted musically and artistically) that would allow high school students to "evolve" mentally at a reasonable pace would be sacrificed. The in-depth philosophical treatment required would be of benefit to only a few in high school. Face it, most of my students have no need for philosophy in order to go on with their day to day lives as productive citizens.Don't get me wrong, I loved the philosophy classes I took in college--Existentialism, Existentialism in Education, Logic, Environmental Ethics, Philosophy of Religion--but I will say that I could still carry out a productive role as almost anything without a philosophy class. Academic jobs, would of course, need the required philosophy of such-and-such in college, but a general philosophy course in high school would merely be looked at as a waste of time.Another argument would run that there is simply not enough time in which to insert another unit into a State Mandated Testing subject like biology. My students, starting next year, will have to pass a state test in biology in order to graduate from h.s. I already have enough on my plate as far as this is concerned.All science classes in MD have standards--basic minimums--that include a section on the scientific method. Some would argue that the sci method covers enough of the philosophy of science that students need to know in order to function--and sometimes excel--in the sciences. The sci method defines science and how it is used based on the standards set forth by the NCS and the NAS. If it is good enough for the national organizations that are actually made up of scientists doing actual scientific research, then it should be good enough for the states.Your comment about "confirming your narrow philosophy and worldview" is misused. You think that we are wrong b/c science operates on narrow principles. That is actually the foundation of any field. Once you go outside the narrow principles of your field, you are no longer talking about science, religion, music, etc. You seem to want to include so much into science that it would no longer be science. That is exactly what will happen when ID is pushed into biology. (I believe you can find many discussions on why ID is not science elsewhere on this site.)Science deals with one major thing--the natural world, and of course, how it works according to natural laws. Once naturalistic explanations are no longer sought out, biology, or any other science for that matter, would cease to exist. Science is based on evidence--objective evidence. Throwing in subjective beliefs, for example "we don't know with a 100% certainty that this is what happened so 'a god' (higher intelligence, aliens, Buddha, Christ, Allah, etc) did it," does nothing to advance science or its uses in our lives.Everything about science flows from its naturalistic underpinnings. Rigorous testing of hypotheses would count for shit b/c the null hypothesis would always be that god did it. Science rests on experimentation. What good is science if we could subjectively pick and choose the results of experimentation? Things are what they are or they are not. Your support your hypotheses with evidence or you reject them for lack thereof. So, by advocating ID or creationism, you are, in essence, advocating getting rid of the key tool of science needed to understand science in high school--the scientific method!Theories are explanations of many natural phenomena that have been supported by many hypotheses that have been tested many times. You and your ID/creationist buddies still think that evolution is "just a theory and not fact." Your statement is not incorrect. However, you use it deceitfully. Theories explain facts. Without facts, no theories. Without theory, we have nothing but a bunch of facts. You advocate students receiving all the information on everything so they can make up their minds, but you fight against your own agenda by taking the necessary explanation required for intelligent thought out of the equation. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. "We want students to be given all the info so they can make up their minds. However, theory, which is the explanation of the facts the students receive, is unnecessary!" Why have science at all?You seem to forget that not all viewpoints are correct. If someone is wrong, it is the duty of someone who knows what he is talking about to correct that viepoint. Some viewpoints, such as the abortion issue, religion, personal worldview, etc. are subjective and in so many words, a matter of taste. However, science is not a matter of subjective taste!!! In science, hypotheses and theories are either supported or falsified. You cannot agree that the Germ Theory of Disease or the Cell Theory or the Heliocentric Theory or the Theory of Relitivity or (insert a scientific theory here) are correct and can be "believed" while the Theories of Common Descent, Speciation, Evolution, Gradualism and Natural Selection are a "matter of taste". Theories have to be based on serious work backed up by mountains of evidence. By saying that the Theory of Common Descent is wrong is akin to saying that Earth does not revolve around Sun! You cannot pick and choose what you want to believe in science like you can your favorite ice cream! Picking and choosing is what creationists and ID proponents do.You cannot compromise in science. Either the theory wins out or it is proven wrong. Science is a cut-throat operation. There is no middle ground. Theories can be modified, but that is not compromise. Two sides in a scientific argument don't say "I will support your idea if you include or support mine". Science is not democratic. There are no votes. Theories are supported or rejected. Playing on the democratic "ideals" of our country in order to gain popular support for either an overwhelmingly disproven idea such as creationism or an idea that is not based on any hard evidence or experimentation of its own such as ID is shameful, deceitful and inexcusable. You follow the principles of St. Augustine when he advocated the suppression of truth that is contradictory to the faith. In other words, you lie in order to get people to support your subjective "truth". Hmm, I smell hypocrisy!Don't worry, I am having a good day! Smiles all around. I hope you have a good day as well. Or, barring that, make up a good day for yourself. You seem to be good at making things up

Thank you for being so polite. I apologize for any unseemly tone from my previous message.However, ID is not science, mainstream or not. Science promotes hypotheses and theories that are tested and can be falsified. ID cannot be tested, nor can it be falsified. Something cannot be a science if it doesn't even follow the basic tenets of science.Science does not say that everything is accidental. Whatever happens in the natural world is governed by natural laws that are constant and consistent. Just b/c we are pattern seeking animals who need reasons for everything does not justify us inserting gap-filling arguments just so we can say that we know. We are a very presumptive species, aren't we!?! Which sperm out of a billion fertilizes the egg? Is that accidental? Is it random? Or maybe the sperm that wins out is the most fit. The mutation that led to that increased fitness might have been somewhat random, but the consequence of that mutation depends on that phenotype's interaction with its environment. Nature keeps the gains and eradicts the mistakes. The most fit survive and reproduce. That sounds that anything but accidental.Equating evolution negatively with ideas from outside of science does nothing to move the debate forward. Many Christians are theistic and have no problems with naturalistic science. God just made the universe the way it is and has given us the capability to discover for ourselves what he/she/it has done.Are you fearful of something? I am not trying to be rude, but you sound afraid. Do you think that if evolution is right that your faith is null and void? Do you believe that naturalistic science, which makes no claims on whether a god exists or not, destroys faith? I became an athiest long before I began to study evolution in depth. Nothing in science showed me the way to throw off my shackled beliefs. I just started taking philosophy and comparative religion classes in college. I began to think for myself and lose the fear of retribution or exile in an afterlife. My mother, however, is a very spiritual woman and has no problem with my outlook or with the theory of evolution. I guess some people can still keep church and state seperate in their minds.Have a good one!

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? 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 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.

I couldn't agree more. 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!!!

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

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.

After reading some studies of cognition in young children, I take back what I said about philosophy classes for children in public schools. They could handle it. All it takes now is someone passionate about philosophy to come up with a curriculum for the county I work in.One note--you never know who will become the next great biologist, so if I can peak the interest of someone who had never taken an interest in biology before, then I feel that I have done a good job.Also, if I were forced to teach ID along with evolution, the philosophical underpinnings of science would be an absolute necessity for the students to make a "fair and balanced decision" on which "theory" is more "appropriate"!