doubtingt

I certainly agree that a crucial element in the issues here is the counter-productive state testing that aims to place students on a continuum as to their level of broad, shallow, "acheivement". Bush's agenda will basically take everything that is wrong and misguided with the current system and make it worse. There's nothing wrong with "accountability". The problem is that the test being used do not measure anything useful relating to a real understanding, and the only thing they predict is performance on future useless tests.

In spite of these harmful tests, their are actually some researchers who instituted the kind of science education I'm talking about in Madison WI (one of their names is Schauble)
They have claimed that the students in these schools not only had a deeper understanding of science, but also outperformed standard science education classes on standardized tests. The idea is that with a better understanding of science in general these students do not need as much time and exposure to grasp specific issues in a discipline.
That research needs replication and closer study, but its interesting.

As for students needing a Ph.D to have a "deep understanding of ..." I think you underestimate what students are capable of. Bear in mind that almost no H.S. grads have ever had
a course on these issues, and most have had a 12 years of education that actually undermines their appreciation for these critical thinking issues.
Again, there is a growing body of research in
science education, arguementation, and reasoning
showing that even grade school kids can be helped to develop these skills far beyond what we might expect. That being said, I don't assume they can
reach a level where they could write philosophy of science books, but they could reach a level that is far beyond the level of the current "average" H.S. grad.

Buffman

ReasonableDoubt

Marvelous! Thank you.

>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>

doubtingt

I certainly agree that a crucial element in the issues here is the counter-productive state testing...and the only thing they predict is performance on future useless tests.

Hear! Hear!

In spite of these harmful tests,...That research needs replication and closer study, but its interesting.

Agreed! Why not try it in Cleveland?

As for students needing a Ph.D to have a "deep understanding of ..." I think you underestimate what students are capable of. Bear in mind that almost no H.S. grads have ever had a course on these issues, and most have had a 12 years of education that actually undermines their appreciation for these critical thinking issues.

Perhaps! However, I hope you noted that I wrote "average" when describing the students. I like to believe that I seldom underestimate what humans are capable of accomplishing. I was commenting on your entire statement. ("a deep understanding of and the skills to engage in evidence-based reasoning, argumentation and theory testing" ) I guess we would have to define our terms. What do you mean by "deep understanding?"

Again, there is a growing body of research... but they could reach a level that is far beyond the level of the current "average" H.S. grad.

(Ooooops! I guess you did catch it.) I have little doubt concerning the increased level of knowledge that could be included in the curriculum and successfully taught to even the "average" student. But once again I find myself looking to other changes that must be addressed first.

Since the welfare of the America public is no longer dependent on a full time agrarian economy, perhaps it is time that year-round schooling, and its costs/sacrifices, be given some serious re-examination. Time is the current enemy. Time to teach all the things that will be of optimum benefit to the future voter qualified citizen and to the nation/society at large.

In this post-nuclear age of information glut, how do we determine knowledge priorities? Why study Math or Music when all you need, in some folk's mind, is a computer/synthesizer? (Yes! I noted your specialty.) Why study Latin, Greek, any foreign language, Ancient History, the literary classics, American History, Logic, Science Philosophy, etc. How do they contribute to full employment in what is essentially a modern service economy? How do any of those contribute to a graduating student's ability to compete, survive and protect the tenets of a free society?

These are not minuscule problems. They are huge! They are tough to resolve! Naturally the folks concerned with science education in America would work to offer programs that enhance the knowledge about, and participation in, their particular disciplines. ReasonableDoubt just provided a marvelous reference that explores the reasoning behind why every high school graduate, and every citizen, should have an accurate and operable foundation in the sciences/scientific methodology. But that kind of valid insight must go beyond merely an On-Line site. It must capture the minds and energetic support of state legislators, Boards of Education and parents all across our land. How is that accomplished? And if it were accomplished, what are the practical problems involved with its implementation.

Once we were more a nation of "generalists." Those days are no more. Today "specialization" dominates the economic success arena. For a liberal arts graduate like myself, that is the curse that we have passed on to our progeny. Because of the lack of time and the cornucopia of information flow, we have had to, out of necessity, compartmentalize our minds in order to survive and succeed. Time is the enemy. We must find methods to maximize its utility and application to the problems confronting us.

We are living longer, but are we achieving more? (Of course that would depend on my definition of "achieve.") Is the world a safer place? Are the principles and values of freedom and liberty gaining or losing ground? Are we electing statesmen and women to office because they are the most qualified to represent us? How do we know? Do we have the time to find out? How does science measure principle and morality?---Oh my! Sorry! Take the soapbox back. I'm dredging up all kinds of irrelevant issues concerning your initial post.

dk

dk: It seems to me the closed fisted hostility of public education to evolution or creation follows from intellectual insecurity. One taught to the exclusion of the other ignores important philosophical questions that hobble students and deprive education of value. Only in a free and open society does faith and reason serve the same goal. Faith apart from reason tends to wither on the vine of endless unquestionable tautologies. Reason without faith folds the mind upon itself spiraling into the depths of skepticism, apathy and cynicism.

General evolutionary theory has failed to solve a single problems in the real world. Many questions resist scientific methods, and creationism properly understood endows people with a sense of the sacred that clarifies human dignity, freedom, and liberty. For example evolution science lacks the wherewithal to answer the simplest questions about the mind-body problem, self and consciousness, much less address the hard questions about “intelligent design” verses “the creative forces of the universe”. More specifically empirical science altogether lacks the gravitas to see beyond the limits of sense-experience, therefore is totally blind human potential, promises and intimacy.
dk: Evolutionary science has great difficulty debunking the simplest frauds like phrenology, Piltdown Skull, Mead’s study of Samoans and Kinsey’s maniacal depiction of human sexuality. The hard core sciences of mathematics, physics, astronomy, chemistry, and biology have advanced from paradigm to paradigm by solving one problem after another, while the social sciences have learned to succeed by creating problems than can’t solve. When (if) the social sciences solve a problem it becomes a footnote, but the unsolved problems become bureaucratic empires. The most prominent failure being education. In the 1960s public schools were the crowned jewel of the Great Society, almost 40 years later after spending $trillions on a huge bureaucracy to police, certify and deploy a secular multicultural curriculum public schools become forts secured by armed guards, metal detectors, drug sniffing dogs, and no tolerance policies. Believe it or not people don’t object to evolution, people objective to an incomprehensible pseudoscience that creates insoluble problems. All the branches of the social sciences drink from the root of evolutionary science, and the fruit of the tree has been sour, sparse and spurious.
dk: - The obvious solution is to teach micro-evolution as dogma, and severe the contentious link between evolutionary theory, social and hard sciences in k0-k12 curriculum. Education and science like the courts can’t afford a personality in the form of a secular or religious persona. This is no simple task given the reliance of Civil Rights upon cultural relativism rooted in obsolete concepts of evolutionary theory. We need to focus upon the cultural value of education, not the value of obsolete theories. Sociology, psychology, political, economic and language sciences have taken a beating under the tutelage of special interest groups that parade and sensationalize the social sciences through media mud. Higher education has become vested in the bureaucratic behemoths that engineer social reform under the general auspices of dated evolutionary theory. More specifically the integrity of higher education requires the social sciences to divest themselves of political entanglements to reestablish their objectivity as of islands free thought unburdened by the pressures that cook the greater society. The idea of using the bleeding edge of science to foster social dogma presents a bloody proposition. The net affect being to undermine objective science with the persona of political correctness.
dk: - You are in denial. Let’s reflect for a moment upon the difference between the science of evolution and the public’s understanding of folk evolution. They simply don’t resemble one another because the science moves to quickly. I believe they myths authored by folk evolution present the greatest obstacle to evolutionary science. This is a tower of Babel scenario. Creationism and Creation Science don’t resemble one another, anymore than folk evolution resembles scientific evolution. Creation science attacks folk evolution; and folk evolution attacks creation science. Creationism and evolutionary science are two wings of the same bird because both raise philosophical questions.
dk: - I agree, and I would add that folk evolution feeds off the fanaticism of left wing political radicals, vested interests of government bureaucracy and the legacy of scientific myth.

[ September 20, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

Claudia

Creationism debunking in high school would also be faith based. How to refute the argument that "radiometric dating does not work" without enough knowledge in physics? How to use fossiles series if pupils do not understand how they are dated, and in which case it is precise and in which case it is not?
And so on.
Debunking of "Creationist sience", or debunking of "Evolution debunking" requires non basic knowledge in Particles Physics, Astronomy, Geology, Comparative Anatomy, Taxonomy, Genetics and molecula biology. And I probably forget some subjects.
I do not see how to teach all that to high school pupils without saying from time to time "It is true because the teacher says so (because great scientists have proved it... but you must accept they did because...)". Which leads way to "Evolution is also a religion".
Now, of course, it is possiple to learn critical thinking to pupils based on data which are evolution examples (how and why are these data pertinent to confirm/falsify evolution theory...).

As a side note, the only subjects in which I have seen multiple choice tests in my studies or my children's one are in grammar courses (French or foreign languages, as English). In sciences courses (naths, physics, chemistry, biology...) tests always require argumented answers.

doubtingt

quote:

dk: It seems to me the closed fisted hostility of public education to evolution or creation follows from intellectual insecurity. One taught to the exclusion of the other ignores important philosophical questions that hobble students and deprive education of value. Only in a free and open society does faith and reason serve the same goal.

doubtingt response:
They never serve the same goal. Faith inherently serves to lead people to accept ideas because of a motivational desire to accept them, regardless of the evidence and logic that supports or contradicts their truth. Reason serves to lead people to conclusions in direct correspondence to the evidence and logic that supports their truth, regardless of any motivational desire to accept or reject the conclusions. Faith is, by definition, the anti-thesis of reason.


dk said: Faith apart from reason tends to wither on the vine of endless unquestionable tautologies. Reason without faith folds the mind upon itself spiraling into the depths of skepticism, apathy and cynicism.

doubtingt response: "Skepticism" means "thoughtful", so "the depths of skepticism" is exactly what we should strive for. Apathy and cynicism have nothing to do with reason without faith, either empirically or logically.

dksaid: General evolutionary theory has failed to solve a single problems in the real world.

doubtingt responds: Every question is a problem and evolution answers tens of thousands of questions, so you are simply wrong. If by "problem" you mean "something that I subjectively feel is bad that needs to be changed", then the ability of a theory to solve such "problems" has no bearing at all on the accuracy of the theory.


dk said: Many questions resist scientific methods, and creationism properly understood endows people with a sense of the sacred that clarifies human dignity, freedom, and liberty.

doubtingt responds: The only questions that cannot be addressed by the scientific method are non-factual questions about subjective tastes and preferences that have no actual objective answers. Your examples above fit this category quite well.
Faith systems do not "answer" such questions either. Faith systems are simply assert objective truth without justification because such systems are not concerned with truth, only with belief.
What science can address (and faith cannot) is what does belief in creationism lead to in regard to beliefs about dignity, freedom, and liberty. Correlational data suggests that such belief is associated with anti-human values, putting the will of an imaginary daddy in the sky above human happiness, and restricting freedom and liberty in order to please the will of the authoritarian dictator. Creationism is not simply factually wrong, it is morally wrong according to the values of dignity, freedom, and liberty.

dk said: For example evolution science lacks the wherewithal to answer the simplest questions about the mind-body problem, self and consciousness, much less address the hard questions about “intelligent design” verses “the creative forces of the universe”. More specifically empirical science altogether lacks the gravitas to see beyond the limits of sense-experience, therefore is totally blind human potential, promises and intimacy.

doubtingt responds: Nonsense. Science in general and evolution in particular have greatly increased our understanding of the mind-body problem and the massive amounts of evidence contradicts the predictions of dualism and supports the predictions of materialistic monism.

doubtingt

This is just silly. According to your argument then the straight forward teaching of evolution is faith based as well. Kids have to understand all of these same things to be able to directly verify the evidence and arguements related to evolution. In fact, the teaching of 90% of subject matter in all grade-school science, history, literature, etc., would have to be considered "faith based".
Of course its the case that students' abilities
are limited and they have to accept
certain assertions on authority, because they lack the skills to fully understand the reasoning for themselves. This does not mean that students cannot reason at all in a domain. To call everything that cannot be 100% understood based on one's own reasoning "faith-based" is a false dichotomy.

As for testing, they certainly have MC questions in science, especially on the standardized tests.
Also, fill in the blank and "define this term" questions do no better at assessing reasoning and argumentation. Standardized tests are not designed to tap reasoning and have no basis in theory. These tests are designed for the purpose of being quick and easy ways to generate a score that can be used for political and administrative purposes. As for normal classroom exams very few teachers create exams that assess reasoning. Many teachers simply lack the knowledge themselves to able to evaluate scientific reasoning of their students.

[ September 20, 2002: Message edited by: doubtingt ]</p>

Buffman

dk

After reading your post, I feel that you do not clearly grasp what the Theory of Evolution does or does not entail. I would like to recommend the following to you:

<a href="http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/introduction.html" target="_blank">http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/introduction.html</a>

doubtingt

Thank you. You saved me a very long reply to dk. I agree with each of your counter-points. I found his following statement to be especially absurd.

Reason without faith folds the mind upon itself spiraling into the depths of skepticism, apathy and cynicism.

Though I may be simply spinning my wheels, I would like to offer the following quotes to help 'dk' gain an insight into "reason."

1. "There is not any thing, which has contributed so much to delude mankind in religious matters, as mistaken apprehensions concerning supernatural inspiration or revelation; not considering, that all true religion originates from reason, and can not otherwise be understood, but by the exercise and improvement of it." ("Reason the Only Oracle of Man", Ethan Allen, 1784, page 200)

2. "Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God, because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of a blind faith." (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Peter Carr, his nephew, August 10, 1787)

3. "What are the facts? Again and again and again---what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history"---what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the Facts!" (Robert A. Heinlein's "Time Enough for Love", Pg. 246 of the 1987 Ace Paperback Edition)

4. "Reason is, of all things in the world, the most hurtful to a reasoning human being. God only allows it to remain with those he intends to damn, and in his goodness takes it away from those he intends to save or render useful to the Church....If reason had any part in religion, what then would become of faith?" ("Philosophical Dictionary" by Voltaire essay on "Reason" 1764)

[ September 20, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

dk

dk: - You mean in your opinion faith and science serve separate ends. But this is a statement of dogma. Whatever one believes it should be tempered with reason. Whatever a child learns in public education K0-k12 is 90% dogmatic or instinctual. Lets be clear, public school campuses are artificial egalitarians environments run under a strict bureaucratic hierarchy second only to the military.
dk: You mean in your opinion skepticism means thoughtful, in this instance your opinion runs contemptuous to authoritative sources like the dictionary. The dictionary defines words suffixed with “ism” as a distinct source of doctrine, cause or theory. So you find skepticism a distinct source of doctrine, that is thoughtful. Nonetheless, any doctrinal statement falls short of the scientific method.
dk: - I’m not concerned with abstract theories, but practical realities. Answers like opinions are a dime a dozen. Societies, cultures and civilizations grow and prosper by solving problems, or conversely wither and parish wasting finite vital resources at insoluble problems. If evolutionary theory has no bearing on social ills, economics, medicine, morals & ethics or government then it is an exercise in esoteric hobnobbery, not science. You need to make up your mind. The power of science rests upon its ability to solve problems with creative innovative solutions.
dk: Again, a dogmatic statement. The reliability of a method is manifested by a solution to real life problems. The hard sciences are reliable because they reliably solve hard problems. The social sciences are an embarrassment to science because they fail to solve even simply problems. The scientific method has failed to solve the mind body problem, and the general reliability of post-modern psychology literally hinges upon psychedelic comedy pitting psychoanalysts, behaviorists and psychotropic therapists at one another’s throats looking for a scapegoat. This isn’t science, it’s a battle between snake oil merchants and their publicists named Doctor Quack, Doctor Honk, and Doctor DoLitttle.
dk: - No, no. I’m not going to play the blame game. The social sciences have overstated their conclusions and reliability to empower themselves. At best the claims of secular social visionaries have been proven wrong again and again, the only question is whether they made honest mistakes or perpetrated open fraud upon honest people. The tragedy of errors ranks one rational tyrant worse than the previous, including Mercantilism, Imperialism, Laissez-faire Capitalism, Social Darwinism, Scientific Racism, Nationalism, NAZISM, and Communism.
dk: Seems to me Christianity brought Western Europe out of the Dark Ages into the High Middle Ages. The Middle Ages flowered into the Age of Discovery and the Renaissance. The Renaissance authored the Industrial Revolution, modern philosophy and technology. That brings us into the 19-20th Century dominated by the French Revolution, Napoleonic Empire, Total Warfare, British Empire, Opium Wars, Europe’s WW I, Europe’s WW II, Communist Empire, the Cold War (MAD) and international terrorism. Low and behold the breakup of the Communist WARSAW Pact was inspired by a Polish Priest who became Pope. The only light at the end of the tunnel called the 20th Century (Western Civilization) came from the US in the substance of human rights, human dignity bolstered by democratic republics. The post-modernist world by any standard has become unmoored from the progress of the last 1200 years. Why? Because Western Civilization under the tutelage of the modern secular state has lost the direction and wherewithal to solve problems. We exist in a world increasingly dependent on science as a crutch for degenerate morals and ethics. Science and technology have proven a harsh taskmaster and an unreliable remedy for social, economic or political ills, and that’s an opinion.
dk: - Another dogmatic statement posited upon blind faith in the social sciences. Your retort escapes into the esoteric world of hobnob. The whole philosophy of science, education, language, culture, history and nature has been systematically arranged under the god-head of evolutionary theory. Yet Macro evolution lacks a beginning, mechanism, direction, destination or purpose. The whole arcade resembles a shapeless shiftless epicycle that leads nowhere by explaining everything. Public Schools are failing on their own merits, and the more $money government pours into the monopoly the worse education gets. Oddly the failure of secular education under the tutelage of wide eyed evolutionary pin heads has been a boon and a curse to the social sciences. The dynamics are so complex and visceral between the social sciences and the god-head of evolutionary theory its impossible to tell who corrupts who i.e. corrupted by political entanglements, vested interests of big brother bureaucracies, and an over-protective judicial oligarchy that portrays the oracle of Delphi. The sets up a syndrome that rewards failure, leaves no good deed unpunished, and greases the squeaky wheel of the demagogue. This is a big problem way beyond scope of creationism verses evolutionism.

[ September 20, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

Buffman

dk

Answers like opinions are a dime a dozen.

Not the accurate answers. Scientific answers confine themselves to questions of the natural world...not a make believe one. Evidence must be verified. However, science welcomes change. Faith beliefs do not.

This is the C-SS forum. Perhaps we should look for a more appropriate one for this discussion.

(ADDED)

Low and behold the breakup of the Communist WARSAW Pact was inspired by a Polish Priest who became Pope.

Nice try! Perhaps you don't know accurate history as well as you think you do.

<a href="http://www.time.com/time/special/moy/1981.html" target="_blank">http://www.time.com/time/special/moy/1981.html</a>

[ September 20, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

tgamble

Teaching good science refutes creation "science" anyway. If the teacher is addressing the fossil record, they're refuteing the lie that there are no transitional fossils, that species appear suddenly etc. Alleged IC systems can be discussed and explained without mentioning creationism.

Creationist arguments typically consist of pointing at science and screaching "IS NOT IS NOT IS NOT". Science education should concentrate on teaching science. That in itself will be enough.

If specific creationist arguments come up (for the age of the earth for example) they should be refuted. Perhaps with printed materials rather than wasteing classroom time with it.