Slashdot Mirror
Limiting the Teaching of the Scientific Process In Ohio
frdmfghtr (603968) writes Over at Ars Technica, there's a story about a bill in the Ohio legislature that wants to downplay the teaching of the scientific process. From the article: "Specifically prohibiting a discussion of the scientific process is a recipe for educational chaos. To begin with, it leaves the knowledge the kids will still receive—the things we have learned through science—completely unmoored from any indication of how that knowledge was generated or whether it's likely to be reliable. The scientific process is also useful in that it can help people understand the world around them and the information they're bombarded with; it can also help people assess the reliability of various sources of information."
The science standards would have "...focus on academic and scientific knowledge rather than scientific processes; and prohibit political or religious interpretation of scientific facts in favor of another." Political interpretation of scientific facts include humans contributing to climate change according to the bill's sponsor, who also thinks intelligent design would be OK under the law.
just because the dept of ed has utterly failed any of us who went through school in the past 40 years, doesnt mean the right thing to do is go back and not teach you know, the basics. The dept of ed is horrible, but people like this dont belong setting the curriculum either
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
A lot of fuss is made about how creationists aren't hurting anyone by teaching creationism in schools. At least a lot of fuss by creationists.
But to knock "how science actually works" off the curriculum in order to make creationism slightly more viable as a meme, knocks a very important and practical tool out of childrens' toolbox for learning about the world.
I'd go as far as saying learning about the scientific method is equally or more important that learning how to write papers expressing your opinions, or solving equations, or how congress works, as far as parity to other common subjects goes.
This is sabotaging a lot of children's' education in a big way for a miniscule victory in the culture wars. This is why creationists need to be far from policy maker positions.
I see stories about bills like this all of the time, but they usually die in committee after fulfilling their purpose of giving the guy a bullet point for his next campaign poster. Is this one expected to actually have a shot in hell at passing? Sometimes they do slip through the cracks, especially in the bible belt.
I read the internet for the articles.
Basically he just wants to teach 'facts'. Which is effectively just teaching history. Which conveniently he'll substitute his own political version of history for the recruits...I mean kids...to learn.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
The scientific method is the single, most important discovery of the human race. It underlies everything we have achieved. Downplaying it means to reject modern civilization and rationality. But that may be just what these cretins want.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
They will not even have the bible, as paper and printing (or ink) is a result of applied science. So is incidentally horse-husbandry, the fire and the pot the soup is in.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
If we make sure we don't teach our students how to think, acquiring a larger voting base will be much easier in the future!
It doesn't matter. The WHOLE reason we're having this debate is not about science. It's not even about creationism or "intelligent design" or however we "evolve" the term.
The Discovery institute (the real organization behind all this) believes fundamentally, society went awry when we did the whole "separation of church and state" thing and that religion in school meant students were better behaved and more obedient, and society as a whole was just better off.
So that's the real end goal - to get religion - or more correctly, Christianity, back into schools so everyone becomes a "good little Christian boy".
(Yes, it glosses over a LOT of things, like racial issues, the fact that there are more religions than just Christianity, etc).
Basically all of society's ills are the direct result of secularism and the pursuit of "things" (money, toys, stuff) instead of spirituality.
It's just that creationism is the wedge issue that can get them in the door the easiest since a lot more Americans believe in it (than say, a great flood happened, or that everything we see was made in a week a few thousand years ago). And once you're in the door, spreading the other beliefs becomes a lot easier.
No, it's flamebait. It mentions no less than four additional points not relevant to this discussion simply in an attempt to troll Americans. Take out those four other points and I would agree it's a valid criticism, or perhaps include other points that ARE relevant/related.
When did science stop being a methodology and become a belief system?
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
It's not good to teach facts over method. If you've got limited time, then teaching kids how to think about problems is much more important than teaching them a bunch of things they can get for themselves from books and the internet. How to think critically and process the evidence behind claims that are presented to you is a lifelong skill. Facts are something you memorize for a test and then forget unless you need them again. This sort of law is based on people being afraid that kids will grow up and think critically about what the religious and political leaders want them to swallow.
Plus, it implies that things like evolution and anthropogenic climate change are merely "political" rather than well backed by scientific evidence. Just because there are people who have political reasons for not wanting kids to believe them doesn't mean the conclusions themselves are political.
So that's the real end goal - to get religion - or more correctly, Christianity, back into schools so everyone becomes a "good little Christian boy"
More correctly, their version of Christian theology. When I point out to them that the Catholic Church has stated that evolution and the scientific method are not in conflict they get upset. They point out the Catholic Church is not the decider and get even more steamed when I remind him that Jesus founded the Catholic Church as His Church and thus it and the Pope speak for God; and it says so in the Bible and why do they not believe in the Bible? They claim to be Christians, after all.
That's the real problem. When people want to bring back God into school they mean their version of God which isn't necessarily someone else's. They often claim they want to give religion equal time but get very upset when someone brings religious beliefs in they don't approve of.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
I would also argue that "Intelligent Design" isn't Christian. Arguing that God exists because the world is made the same way a human would make it isn't biblical. An all knowing God doesn't need reason to create anything. An all powerfull God does not care about efficiency. Human asthetics from human culture/biology isn't going to influance how God creates the world. Intelligent Design anthropomorphizes God into a man. You wind up with Zeus instead of a pillar of fire/burning bush/rock of ages.