galiel

Of course it is possible. That doesn't mean that it is, necessarily, in this or any other case, but of course it is possible.

Nontheless, I am talking about root causes here. Given the lack of success to combat creationism and religious dogma to date, I think it is legitimate to question even the most basic assumptions (I happen to think that is the way to begin examination of anything, but that is topic for a separate discussion).

Much of what has been identified as causal is, IMO, symptomatic. I tend to believe that providing tools of individual empowerment is more effective than "combatting" competing ideas, especially ones with the deep roots and overwhelming resources of organized religion. I also think providing such tools is more effective than treating the symptoms of wide-spread ignorance (which is by no means the same thing as stupidity. Ignorance is remedial.) I also think that it is the most ethical and respectful choice. Give people the tools and let them make up their own minds.

The best tools for individual empowerment are, IMO, the tools of critical thinking and the scientific method.

Denial of evolution, and religion in general, are symptoms of ignorance and inability to think critically. Ignorance is, IMO, at the heart of what ails modern society. Ignorance makes one vulnerable to simplistic explanations, authoritarian rule, political manipulation, and more. Ignorance is the source of fear, and fear in turn breeds hate. I propose treating the core disease, not its symptoms.

I would make one more general point. Much of the criticism of proposals such as my own boils down to a lack of faith in humanity. There is a broad attitude of elitism and condescension that prevails among nontheists in this community, a belief that, because religion is stupid, religious people are stupid people. I believe that religion depends on ignorance. I believe that if most of us examined what caused us not to believe, we will find that it was the result of independent thought, analysis and an expectation of a consistent, logically comprehendable reality. Few of us, I suspect, were "converted" to atheism by organized "deprogramming".

Of course, YMMV. But I have yet to find a religious person who applies the rules of critical thought to their faith, and emerges whole. More typical, even among the "best" educated, is the statement that "when it comes to my religion, I have to stop thinking and just believe". That kind of unnatural ability comes only with strong conditioning. Critical thinking, IMO, is the best vaccine against the virus of organized religion.

[ December 15, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

Principia

Presumably, only after the student has learned to think critically for herself... But that is quite a low standard for judging an educational system, because there would be no criteria for judging the didactic components. In fact, I daresay that galiel's logic is ironically one employed by both Creationists/IDiots alike -- "Teach the controversy" by "critically" "analyzing" the "evidence." DI would love nothing less to put galiel up as a poster-boy for their education reform agenda...

[ December 15, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]</p>

pz

Ah. So the fact that you are so obdurately imperceptive is our fault.

scigirl

Thanks for that clarification, galiel.

I agree with what you are saying - but remember that we don't start going to school until around age 5. I think it's possible that critical thinking skills are already ingrained or not at that point (although it's not set in stone and can be changed). So parents play a huge role in this. By the time a person gets to a class that really tests critical thinking skills, it might be too late for some....

scigirl

galiel

You suspect incorrectly.

2) " And why are you singling out teachers here? What about the role of parents, for instance?"

You clearly equate the word teacher to mean "a certified professional working in a formal institution of learning. That is symptomatic of the problem. Learning is not something that only happens in sanctioned temples of learning.

3) You once again insist on using "teaching" to mean "informing". Otherwise the statements

"Regardless of whatever it is that is being taught, a teacher can only impart so much to any individual student," and "How do we measure the success of a teacher?" make little sense.

Interesting how the focus of your entire post is on teachers and teacher evaluation, not on empowering students to learn.

This reminds me a great deal of the prevailing focus among businesses on profits and stockholders, not value to customers. It is part of what ails our society, this focus on individual gain as opposed to civic contribution.

Now, I am sure you are a dedicated teacher. Teaching is, in my opinion, one of the most noble professions, and one that demands extreme sacrifices for meager (at least tangible) rewards.

Nontheless, teaching in the prevailing education system has as much to do with what I mean by teaching as hockey has to do with figure skating. Even the best figure skater will get the wind knocked out of them after ten minutes in a hockey rink, and even the best hockey player will look awkward and graceless when asked to perform a triple-lutz-triple-salchow.

"How do we measure the success of a teacher? On a case-by-case basis? Or averaged over all of her students?"

What student wishes to be an "average"? What parent wishes their child to be part of an "average"? What true teacher worries more about how they will be evaluated than the degree to which each and every student leaves their care improved for having entered it?

scigirl

So you know everything and everyone else is nearly always wrong? Why aren't *you* a teacher then, so everyone else can be as smart as you? Problem solved!

So is everyone else, galiel.

Well this thread was doing that. . . it started out rather tongue-in-cheek but later people added very valuble comments.l

I agree with you.

Again I agree - but how do we address this?

Huh? Are you talking about your critiques of others, or others of you here?

Yes sometimes there is, as evidenced by your next comment...
Hmm, you were talking about elitism?
I agree. So let's see some from everyone here! Instead of fighting amongst ourselves about why X is Y, let's think of some positive solutions to the problem of ignorance.

I'll start by thinking of one: giving money to the local museum, that does programs for kids to start them early on the critical thought path...

scigirl

galiel

I don't look at the current system and figure out how to fit into it. I look at how to replace it, or at least bypass it. And nothing in my posts suggests that I equate "learning" solely with schools as we now know them.

I think the way to go about this is to start with the goal, the problem we want to address, the thing we wish to improve, NOT with the current bureaucracy and highly inert system.

If we set as our goal to provide each and every human of functional intelligence the tools for individual intellectual empowerment, namely effective use of critical thinking and the scientific method, then we can begin to look at the most effective way to achieve that goal. Some of the existing infrastructure for imparting knowledge may be useful in that goal, although the political barriers to repurposing existing bureaucracies are formidable.

But we needn't limit ourselves to explicit, formal, organized learning. There are many ways to be what Brenda Laurel calls "culture workers"; that is people who work to inject humanistic values into popular culture and everyday human experience. People learn as much, if not more, fundamental values and thinking modes from their cultural and social environment as they do through our "schools", which are primarily production factories designed to spit out good corporate drones.

Before we start getting into means, however, let's first settle on goals. Otherwise discussion of means becomes rationalization for why it can't be done.

lpetrich

That's right.

But I've looked for similar ones with a search for "Ennius Congreve Monkey", without any success.

[ December 15, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

Clutch

Why should the education story even be in competition for the same level of explanation, with respect to the thread topic? Galiel, I suspect, is emphasizing education for practical political reasons -- ie, because he wants to motivate the idea that turning things around requires, in the first instance, action directly at the level of the education system. But as an explanation, the assertion that Americans just aren't well educated in the relevant respects is trivial.

It certainly seemed obvious to me that the question was: Why don't Americans know any better than to flock to this kind of crap? Of course one answer is: They don't know any better because they've never learned any better. Well, yeah. But why not? And to this question all of the socio-cultural and historical accounts raised here seem plausible as partial explanations.

Starboy

In a world where a teacher was allowed the use of foolproof behavior modification techniques such as a Skinner box, I would agree with this statement. Sure they might loose a few students, but under those conditions even the least academically gifted student would make good progress. Once a stimulus response behavior was established more traditional techniques could be used. But for obvious reasons the reality of the classroom falls far short of this ideal of behavior modification.

Even if teachers had access to behavior modification techniques that were common just thirty years ago I suspect that a great deal could be done. Alas, such methods are not PC anymore so they are out.

So fine you may say, it may not be possible to make young children learn but certainly at the collegiate level, where students are willing participants, there should be no excuse for a teacher to have students who do not learn. It has been awhile since I have taught at that level, but at the time most of the students in the classes I taught were not there to learn physics, but to get the credit needed to graduate with their meal ticket (diploma). Their intent was not to learn physics but to get by with an adequate grade. Mind you, I did not let that bother me, and went on teaching as if they wanted to know. But when the time came to grade papers I did not suffer fools lightly.

And so we come full circle to you galiel. What planet do you come from?

Starboy