NationStates Jolt Archive

Oh noes! The Uk is full of backwards fundies!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7612152.stm

Creationism should be discussed in school science lessons, rather than excluded, says the director of education at the Royal Society.

Professor Michael Reiss says that if pupils have strongly-held family beliefs about creationism such ideas should be explored.

Rather than dismissing creationism as a "misconception", he says it should be seen as a cultural "world view".

This was more valuable than simply "banging on" about evolution, he said.

Rev Prof Reiss, a biologist and Church of England minister, said he now believed it was more effective to engage with pupils' ideas about creationism, rather than to obstruct discussion with those who do not accept the scientific version of the evolution of species.

Evolution

Creationists take a literal interpretation of the Bible's description of the origin of life and reject the Darwinian concept of evolution. Some Muslims also support creationist theories.

Prof Reiss, speaking at the British Association Festival of Science at the University of Liverpool, estimates that about one in 10 children is from a family which supports a creationist view rather than evolutionary.

He says that in his experience it is more effective to include discussion about creationism alongside scientific theories such as the Big Bang and evolution.

"An increasing percentage of children in the UK come from families that do not accept the scientific version of the history of the universe and the evolution of species.

"What are we to do with those children? My experience after having tried to teach biology for 20 years is if one simply gives the impression that such children are wrong, then they are not likely to learn much about the science that one really wants them to learn.

"I think a better way forward is to say to them 'look, I simply want to present you with the scientific understanding of the history of the universe and how animals and plants and other organisms evolved'.

Understanding the universe

Prof Reiss said that he had shifted his own views on how to respond to creationism.

"I realised that simply banging on about evolution and natural selection didn't lead some pupils to change their minds at all.

"Now I would be more content simply for them to understand it as one way of understanding the universe."

This was challenged by Simon Underdown, senior lecturer in the department of anthropology at Oxford Brookes University.

Creationism should be taught within the context of religion rather than science, said Dr Underdown. "It is not something that fits within the mainstream of science."

With so much to be crammed into science lessons, it was not a worthwhile use of time to include lessons about creationism, he argued.

I, for one, am shocked at how ignorant the UKians are. I mean, they are teaching Creationism along side evolution.

But seriously, its a little refreshing to see this story come up and have it NOT be in the United States. So what do ye Brits think of this. I put money that you all think its a bunch of hogwash. :)

I saw that this morning and my first thought was "Oh gods the stupid it's spreading!".

Oh noes! The Uk is full of backwards fundies!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7612152.stm



I, for one, am shocked at how ignorant the UKians are. I mean, they are teaching Creationism along side evolution.

But seriously, its a little refreshing to see this story come up and have it NOT be in the United States. So what do ye Brits think of this. I put money that you all think its a bunch of hogwash. :)

*sigh* no we are not teaching creationism alongside evolution. In fact my son tells me that a teacher at his school got sacked the other day for refusing to teach about evolution in her science class, and he goes to a C of E school.

What this blokes says is basically it makes little sense to ignore the children who have been brought up beliving in creationism, and better way forward would be to communicate with them.

I don't see whats wrong about that.

I saw that this morning and my first thought was "Oh gods the stupid it's spreading!".

I concur. We must take immediate action to stop the stoopid from spreading.

Creationism is not a scientifically based theory, but a religious one. Therefore, it has no place in science lessons. Simple.

Creationism should be mentioned in the same way geocentrism and alchemy are-- historical ideas that have since been discredited.

Professor Michael Reiss says that if pupils have strongly-held family beliefs about creationism such ideas should be explored.

I've got no problem with that:

Student: "Sir, did God create the world in six days?"
Teacher: "No"
[/exploration]

If they've got time to kill the teacher could always indulge in a lengthier discussion:

Student: "Sir, did God create the world in six days?"
Teacher: "No"
Student: "But my pastor says He did!"
Teacher: "Your pastor is an idiot."
[/exploration]

Seriously though, the curriculum's already bad enough without making it worse: Evolution gets a ridiculously short amount of time dedicated to it and a child's first exposure to the idea will come in year 9 Religious Studies (age 13-14 for you Yanks :p), it isn't taught in Biology until year 10. That's even before we get to the fundamentalist schools being set up by with state funding by lunatics like Peter Vardy or various nutty Muslim groups. Basically the UK education system's screwed up beyond belief.

Creationism should be mentioned in the same way geocentrism and alchemy are-- historical ideas that have since been discredited.

Agreed.

To be honest, we have always had our fundie loons and creationists around, we've just never really given them any air-time before, not do I think we should. It's all very well to talk about tackling misconceptions... and that is, in part, what science at school is about. But giving any sort of serious discussion of creationism in science class is merely lending legitimacy to their beliefs.

Instead, since most creationist arguments rely on the fact that evolution is wrong (seriously, how many creationists give positive evidence for creationism?), that scientific validity of evolution and the evidence for it is what should be discussed, non-scientific 'beliefs' should not. Indeed, I believe this is where the national curriculum stands and I seriously cannot imagine that changing, at least in public schools. We come up against the iffy issues when it gets to independant and faith schools. Though, I'm pretty certain you won't be passing GCSE science if you don't know evolution.

-snip-
Firstly, the royal society is just a peer group - not a government advisory body or anything that can influence education policy or practise.

Secondly, he has a point about the conflict between children of religious background and any attempt to teach them. You've gotta say "Okay, let's suspend any explicit assumption that this is the way the world does work and think about it as a way the world might work". Otherwise, they just switch off and/or disrupt class for everyone else. Granted, the solution is not to humour their beliefs and teach everyone else about it, but at least to address the issue that there are some kids who have the misfortune to have been brainwashed into the fervent creationist mindset.

Thirdly, the anthropology lecture is the voice of popular opinion on the matter. Christian ideas are given enough air time in the UK in a Religious Education class, which is part of the national curriculum. Keeping them there is the general consensus.

I saw that this morning and my first thought was "Oh gods the stupid it's spreading!".

I've known that the stupid was spreading all my life. Where have you been?

Anyway, I have a solution to what I call the "Fundie problem": Leave the fundies to themselves and they will die out from inbreeding in a few generations.

Yeah, not going to happen. REV prof.

It looks like the media may have gotten the wrong end of the stick on this one. The Royal Society (http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=8004) have issued a clarification:

No change in Society position on creationism

12 Sep 2008

The Royal Society is opposed to creationism being taught as science. Some media reports have misrepresented the views of Professor Michael Reiss, Director of Education at the Society expressed in a speech yesterday.


Professor Reiss has issued the following clarification. "Some of my comments about the teaching of creationism have been misinterpreted as suggesting that creationism should be taught in science classes. Creationism has no scientific basis. However, when young people ask questions about creationism in science classes, teachers need to be able to explain to them why evolution and the Big Bang are scientific theories but they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis. I have referred to science teachers discussing creationism as a worldview'; this is not the same as lending it any scientific credibility."

The society remains committed to the teaching of evolution as the best explanation for the history of life on earth. This position was highlighted in the Interacademy Panel statement on the teaching of evolution issued in June 2006.

It looks like the media may have gotten the wrong end of the stick on this one. The Royal Society (http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=8004) have issued a clarification:

What's that you say? The media is misrepresenting an academics comments in such a way as to cause mass outrage?

Colour me shocked.

Creationism should be mentioned in the same way geocentrism and alchemy are-- historical ideas that have since been discredited.
Minor niggle: Alchemy isn't discredited, as such. It evolved into modern Chemistry, which didn't start completely from scratch - just threw away the whole esoteric element to the study.

Professor Reiss has issued the following clarification. "Some of my comments about the teaching of creationism have been misinterpreted as suggesting that creationism should be taught in science classes. Creationism has no scientific basis. However, when young people ask questions about creationism in science classes, teachers need to be able to explain to them why evolution and the Big Bang are scientific theories but they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis. I have referred to science teachers discussing creationism as a worldview'; this is not the same as lending it any scientific credibility."

Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification, Prof. Good to see the nation hasn't quite came to the state of affairs that's present over the pond.

finallt a bit of sense in our education, cretinism is the way the universe was made, he just put the bones and stuff there to fool your feeble minds

finallt a bit of sense in our education, cretinism is the way the universe was made, he just put the bones and stuff there to fool your feeble minds

Needs more smileys or someone might take said comment seriously

So we finally kick our creationist out of the country and they move to the UK. Sorry UK our bad. I will write bush to get him to issue a formal apology if they become to annoying.

Needs more smileys or someone might take said comment seriously

O.k

finallt a bit of sense in our education, cretinism is the way the universe was made, he just put the bones and stuff there to fool your feeble minds :p:p:p

(Though i hope they could notice the misspelling and my sig,)

O.k

finallt a bit of sense in our education, cretinism is the way the universe was made, he just put the bones and stuff there to fool your feeble minds :p:p:p

(Though i hope they could notice the misspelling and my sig,)

Anyone stupid enough to entertain creationism as a scientific theory isn't going to notice a few misspellings

Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification, Prof. Good to see the nation hasn't quite came to the state of affairs that's present over the pond.

Well, it's not completely settled. Some news outlets are reporting him as saying that, although Creationism isn't scientific, it should be accepted as being another 'worldview' comparable to the scientific one, implying a lazy relativist attitude (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4735331.ece).

In his speech to the British Association Festival of Science yesterday Professor Reiss pointed out that “an increasing percentage of children in the UK come from families that do not accept the scientific version of the history of the universe and the evolution of species”. His answer is for science teachers not to ridicule their beliefs but to endeavour instead to explain the theories of natural selection and big bang. He would, himself, be willing for the children to see evolution as just one way of understanding the universe. This is not the robust approach that most evolutionary scientists would favour.

Well, it's not completely settled. Some news outlets are reporting him as saying that, although Creationism isn't scientific, it should be accepted as being another 'worldview' comparable to the scientific one, implying a lazy relativist attitude (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4735331.ece).

I don't see this as such a problem.

Anyone stupid enough to entertain creationism as a scientific theory isn't going to notice a few misspellings

Sad but way too true

The topic is misnamed. A more accurate title would be "Creationism to be un-taught"

I don't see this as such a problem.

It may not be as bad as teaching Creationism as science, but it's still a problem: what will the country be like in fifty years time if schools start telling children that science is basically just opinion, and no more or less true than the ramblings of some bronze-age goat herders? They should be telling children that science works and that it's the most reliable method we have for gaining knowledge about the world.

It may not be as bad as teaching Creationism as science, but it's still a problem: what will the country be like in fifty years time if schools start telling children that science is basically just opinion, and no more or less true than the ramblings of some bronze-age goat herders? They should be telling children that science works and that it's the most reliable method we have for gaining knowledge about the world.
Science does work, but that doesn't mean that its current working model is absolute and inviolable - in fact, the reason it works is because it never asserts that what we know is anything more than what we've deduced from what we've seen so far.

It's reasonable to explain that it's an idea. An idea backed by evidence and that has resulted in considerable advancement in biotechnology, but an idea nonetheless.

But this should really be explained to kids properly in an official "thinking skills" class, so that biology teachers can get on with the job of teaching biology.

Science does work, but that doesn't mean that its current working model is absolute and inviolable - in fact, the reason it works is because it never asserts that what we know is anything more than what we've deduced from what we've seen so far.

Certainly.

It's reasonable to explain that it's an idea. An idea backed by evidence and that has resulted in considerable advancement in biotechnology, but an idea nonetheless.

I'm not objecting to the idea of science presented as an idea, I'm objecting to the relativism which presents it as being no better or worse than any other idea. That's why I'm saying teachers should explain to students why science is the best method we have (note that 'best' does not imply 'perfect').

But this should really be explained to kids properly in an official "thinking skills" class, so that biology teachers can get on with the job of teaching biology.

I disagree: very few students will ever need to remember the details of photosynthesis but everyone can benefit from learning scepticism and scientific method. I don't see the need to split it into a separate class: I expect a science teacher to teach science, whether that means facts, scientific theory or scientific methodology. Separating the classes will only reinforce the idea that science is a dusty subject concerned with memorising facts rather than a dynamic one which relies on original and critical thought.

I would personally condone the execution of anyone advocating the teaching of creationism in science classes.

I'm not objecting to the idea of science presented as an idea, I'm objecting to the relativism which presents it as being no better or worse than any other idea. That's why I'm saying teachers should explain to students why science is the best method we have (note that 'best' does not imply 'perfect').


Well I don't think there's an objective way of measuring the 'best' method of perceiving the world. I think to say that it IS the best method is ultimately subjective.

Well I don't think there's an objective way of measuring the 'best' method of perceiving the world. I think to say that it IS the best method is ultimately subjective.

only if the external world doesn't exist

only if the external world doesn't exist

What do you mean?

Well I don't think there's an objective way of measuring the 'best' method of perceiving the world. I think to say that it IS the best method is ultimately subjective.

I tried to find a cartoon I like, which shows an advanced space-ship flying through the sky while a caveman hurls a spear up at it. The caption reads "Science versus Religion: the debate continues". Unfortunately I can't remember where I saw it. :(

If you don't think science is objectively better than other methods at gaining knowledge about the world then try replying to this post without recourse to the products of science.

I tried to find a cartoon I like, which shows an advanced space-ship flying through the sky while a caveman hurls a spear up at it. The caption reads "Science versus Religion: the debate continues". Unfortunately I can't remember where I saw it. :(

If you don't think science is objectively better than other methods at gaining knowledge about the world then try replying to this post without recourse to the products of science.

Well I personally think science is better, but I think my judgement is subjective. Sure, showing how successful science has been with technology and how consistent it all is etc... is a very reasonable and rational way of demonstrating how good science is compared to other methods of perception. Perhaps, however, ultimately these parameters are arbitrary.

What do you mean?

ideas about the external world have consequences in the external world. where competing ideas about it disagree, the world will sort out which one is right and which is wrong. we can, of course, try adjusting our ideas to make the apparent rejection by the world fit back in, but ultimately this will require us to hold that the external world itself doesn't exist.

Well I personally think science is better, but I think my judgement is subjective. Sure, showing how successful science has been with technology and how consistent it all is etc... is a very reasonable and rational way of demonstrating how good science is compared to other methods of perception. Perhaps, however, ultimately these parameters are arbitrary.

How can they be arbitrary? Are you seriously suggesting that it'd be equally reasonable to say "This method has no real basis in observed fact at all, and whenever we've tried to apply it to technology our testers have died horribly, so therefore it's far better than that nasty, effective science stuff"?

ideas about the external world have consequences in the external world. where competing ideas about it disagree, the world will sort out which one is right and which is wrong. we can, of course, try adjusting our ideas to make the apparent rejection by the world fit back in, but ultimately this will require us to hold that the external world itself doesn't exist.

But we can never know for sure what the external world is really like.

How can they be arbitrary? Are you seriously suggesting that it'd be equally reasonable to say "This method has no real basis in observed fact at all, and whenever we've tried to apply it to technology our testers have died horribly, so therefore it's far better than that nasty, effective science stuff"?

That doesn't look like an alternate world view, that looks like an alternate scientific view which was scientifically proven wrong.

What do you mean?

See I would normally agree with you, but if we assume objective reality, the principle of empiric observation is implied. That's what Free Soviets is getting at (I think).

If we assume objective reality, then we accept it as independent of subjective perception of reality, and concede that subjective thought, belief or anything has no impact on the reality of objective existence. If that is the case, then the only thing than can inform the subjective experience about the objective reality correctly is empiric observation, thus the empiric principle is necessitated by the assumption of objective reality itself. As science is built on this very principle, the principle necessarily implied by the primary axiom (that objective reality exists), science is therefore the best way to understand what is the case in objective reality, regardless of sensory imperfection etc. Our knowledge of objective reality can only be informed by empirical feedback.

That doesn't look like an alternate world view, that looks like an alternate scientific view which was scientifically proven wrong.

You agreed that effectiveness was a good and reasonable way to judge the quality of a methodology, what else did you mean when you suggested that 'the parameters might be arbitrary'?

EDIT: And it's not necessarily an 'alternative scientific view'. Suppose a Creationist oil company is set up which tries to guess the location of oil deposites based on Biblical interpretation: that would fit my example (minus the dying...) without being scientific.

See I would normally agree with you, but if we assume objective reality, the principle of empiric observation is implied. That's what Free Soviets is getting at (I think).

If we assume objective reality, then we accept it as independent of subjective perception of reality, and concede that subjective thought, belief or anything has no impact on the reality of objective existence. If that is the case, then the only thing than can inform the subjective experience about the objective reality correctly is empiric observation, thus the empiric principle is necessitated by the assumption of objective reality itself. As science is built on this very principle, the principle necessarily implied by the primary axiom (that objective reality exists), science is therefore the best way to understand what is the case in objective reality, regardless of sensory imperfection etc. Our knowledge of objective reality can only be informed by empirical feedback.

Ahh now I understand what FS is saying, yes I would agree that is true. But because science has that disclaimer, that qualification that 'our perceptions are reliable', it means it's still relying on a subjective assumption and thus not objectively better than any other method, although as I have been saying to you - intuitively and pragmatically that assumption is obvious and there's no point in not making that assumption, however when we go really deep we have to concede that it is an assumption we currently cannot verify. I also will accept the idea that if other methods of looking at the world rely on this assumption, THEN we can say that science is better than those world views, however I'm not sure if creationism makes that assumption.

You agreed that effectiveness was a good and reasonable way to judge the quality of a methodology, what else did you mean when you suggested that 'the parameters might be arbitrary'?


It's a scientific theory because it is contingent on verifiable consequences (such as the technology working).


EDIT: And it's not necessarily an 'alternative scientific view'. Suppose a Creationist oil company is set up which tries to guess the location of oil deposites based on Biblical interpretation: that would fit my example (minus the dying...) without being scientific.

I think it is a scientific hypothesis, since the hypothesis is falsifiable by empirical evidence.

Ahh now I understand what FS is saying, yes I would agree that is true. But because science has that disclaimer, that qualification that 'our perceptions are reliable', it means it's still relying on a subjective assumption and thus not objectively better than any other method, although as I have been saying to you - intuitively and pragmatically that assumption is obvious and there's no point in not making that assumption, however when we go really deep we have to concede that it is an assumption we currently cannot verify. I also will accept the idea that if other methods of looking at the world rely on this assumption, THEN we can say that science is better than those world views, however I'm not sure if creationism makes that assumption.

Well I did not contend that science was objective or true, but even if we do not assume that our "perceptions are reliable", we still have the fact that our perceptions are the only thing that can access objective reality in any fashion (reliable or unreliable), and thus the empirical principle is still necessary and implied of necessity from the primary axiom, regardless of how adequate it is. I will concede that there is no way to know if science is any more objectively accurate than anything else (and it will never be objectively true because science and the cosmology it leads to will still be subjective experience), but on the primary axiom it is the only justifiable approach.

Anything that is not based on empirical observation, be it religion or theoretical physics, if held as true, equates wishing things into existence, and whether they are incidentally true or not, any conclusions drawn from them are irrelevant and inconsistent with the axiom until the empirical principle demonstrates that they express what is the case in reality.

It's a scientific theory because it is contingent on verifiable consequences (such as the technology working).

I think it is a scientific hypothesis, since the hypothesis is falsifiable by empirical evidence.

I'm afraid I still don't see what you're getting at about "arbitrary parameters".

I'm not objecting to the idea of science presented as an idea, I'm objecting to the relativism which presents it as being no better or worse than any other idea. That's why I'm saying teachers should explain to students why science is the best method we have (note that 'best' does not imply 'perfect').
It's not a teacher's job, responsibility or even ability to say that the tools they are teaching students to use are the "best" that are out there, whether that's true or not. That's a marketing trick, not education. You can and should give an explanation as to why and how applying scientific method or using evolutionary theory results in social and biological progress, but the "best" qualifier, as a matter of subjective value, is ultimately unnecessary and could potentially stunt the student's own ability to learn to think for themselves.

I disagree: very few students will ever need to remember the details of photosynthesis but everyone can benefit from learning scepticism and scientific method.
...
Separating the classes will only reinforce the idea that science is a dusty subject concerned with memorising facts rather than a dynamic one which relies on original and critical thought.
Point the first - Students with previous training in critical thought will shine in an adapted syllabus of science focusing more on investigation than rote-learning.

Point the second - If very few people need to learn about photosynthesis, then why make it compulsory learning in the course which tries to teach people skepticism and the scientific method? Surely that just muddies the water, creating unnecessary associations of biology to critical thinking?

Original and critical thought are important everywhere. It's not the unique perogative of science to teach students to question unverified assumptions and to establish good thinking habits, and it would seem slightly self-important of science to think it was. The purpose of the sciences is the discussion of the subject matter - namely, the analysis and use of complex physical systems. That should, you'd have thought, have strong enough appeal on its own. Meanwhile, we can disassociate the idea of critical thought from being something that only academics need to practice to being something ubiquitous to social living

I'm afraid I still don't see what you're getting at about "arbitrary parameters".

Subjectivity. Science is subject to perception and all the flaws inherent to perception, and even if the method was perfect, the data fed through it is invariably skewed. Thus the end result of either method of inquiry cannot be known to represent what is objectively the case, thus practically they are impossible to judge between.

If you don't think science is objectively better than other methods at gaining knowledge about the world then try replying to this post without recourse to the products of science.
The Internet, scientific? Have you seen the state of the thing? It's as jumbled and hacky an invention as you could ever imagine, with politics and finances dominating far more of its structure than good system design, experimentation or logical, reasonable thought.

I know what you're trying to say, but the idea of Science as "Best" is still ultimately subjective, even if probably justified from your perspective.

Anything that is not based on empirical observation, be it religion or theoretical physics, if held as true, equates wishing things into existence, and whether they are incidentally true or not, any conclusions drawn from them are irrelevant and inconsistent with the axiom until the empirical principle demonstrates that they express what is the case in reality.

Right but my point is, theories about God, for instance, are irrelevant to the primary axiom. They are instead often based on different perceptions, perceptions of God or the supernatural, assuming these are true is also another axiom. So I'm arguing that there is no objective way of measuring which axiom is more accurate. However, I think I know where the problem is, I took creationism to merely mean the idea that God created the world, but I think in this particular case it's more specific then that, and more about ideas such as the earth only being a certain age etc... which I didn't properly take into account.

I'm afraid I still don't see what you're getting at about "arbitrary parameters".

I'm not sure either :p, eh I'm a little hungover still, should probably just leave this.

Right but my point is, theories about God, for instance, are irrelevant to the primary axiom. They are instead often based on different perceptions, perceptions of God or the supernatural, assuming these are true is also another axiom. So I'm arguing that there is no objective way of measuring which axiom is more accurate. However, I think I know where the problem is, I took creationism to merely mean the idea that God created the world, but I think in this particular case it's more specific then that, and more about ideas such as the earth only being a certain age etc... which I didn't properly take into account.

That axioms are beyond reasonable debate is granted. Why else would we have been killing each other for as long as we had sticks?

Oh noes! The Uk is full of backwards fundies!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7612152.stm



I, for one, am shocked at how ignorant the UKians are. I mean, they are teaching Creationism along side evolution.

But seriously, its a little refreshing to see this story come up and have it NOT be in the United States. So what do ye Brits think of this. I put money that you all think its a bunch of hogwash. :)

This happens. It's happening more recently, since they've seen how successful it is over here.

It's not too surprising. In our modern, global world, even fundamentalism is an international commodity. Just like everything else, religion - even extremist religion - is no longer isolated.

You agreed that effectiveness was a good and reasonable way to judge the quality of a methodology, what else did you mean when you suggested that 'the parameters might be arbitrary'?
I think he might have been suggesting that the measure of judgement over a method's quality is arbitrary, and that although effectiveness is one reasonable such measure, it's still something we consciously choose to use for our evaluation. In fact, effectiveness itself is kind of a subjective thing, and probably needs to be fleshed out and quantified prior to any assertion of relative value of two methods using it.

I'm not unconvinced that any such quantification would place evolution over creationism, but I am unconvinced that the quantification can be anything but subjective.

It's not too surprising. In our modern, global world, even fundamentalism is an international commodity. Just like everything else, religion - even extremist religion - is no longer isolated.
That's no bad thing, of course. It means we have to deal with a whole lot of crap here and now, and we're probably not ready to solve all the world's problems at once, but at least we're actually getting around to solving them, rather than pretending that distance is reason enough to ignore them.

Subjectivity. Science is subject to perception and all the flaws inherent to perception, and even if the method was perfect, the data fed through it is invariably skewed. Thus the end result of either method of inquiry cannot be known to represent what is objectively the case, thus practically they are impossible to judge between.

Agreed, but I don't see how that challenges the fact that science seems to be the best method we have, or the validity of appealing to scientific success.

Agreed, but I don't see how that challenges the fact that science seems to be the best method we have, or the validity of appealing to scientific success.

I think pragmatic arguments are week and hopeful myself, but if you read my above posts you will see why I think science is the best method.

That's no bad thing, of course. It means we have to deal with a whole lot of crap here and now, and we're probably not ready to solve all the world's problems at once, but at least we're actually getting around to solving them, rather than pretending that distance is reason enough to ignore them.

Aye, I wasn't saying it was a bad thing, per se - although there is the problem that it allows even bad information to be widely disseminated.

On the other hand, hopefully the cure can be disseminated through the same vector as the cancer.

It's not a teacher's job, responsibility or even ability to say that the tools they are teaching students to use are the "best" that are out there, whether that's true or not. That's a marketing trick, not education.

Even if it's true it's not education? Does this mean a history teacher is no longer allowed to tell students that, all other things being equal, an unbiased source written by an eye-witness is better than a piece of anecdotal evidence heard by someone with an axe to grind?

You can and should give an explanation as to why and how applying scientific method or using evolutionary theory results in social and biological progress, but the "best" qualifier, as a matter of subjective value, is ultimately unnecessary and could potentially stunt the student's own ability to learn to think for themselves.

I've yet to see where 'subjective value' comes into it.

Point the first - Students with previous training in critical thought will shine in an adapted syllabus of science focusing more on investigation than rote-learning.

But we shouldn't be delaying the start of science education until they've been through a seperate 'thinking skills' course: by combining the two they can both be started simultaneously.

Point the second - If very few people need to learn about photosynthesis, then why make it compulsory learning in the course which tries to teach people skepticism and the scientific method? Surely that just muddies the water, creating unnecessary associations of biology to critical thinking?

Original and critical thought are important everywhere. It's not the unique perogative of science to teach students to question unverified assumptions and to establish good thinking habits, and it would seem slightly self-important of science to think it was. The purpose of the sciences is the discussion of the subject matter - namely, the analysis and use of complex physical systems. That should, you'd have thought, have strong enough appeal on its own. Meanwhile, we can disassociate the idea of critical thought from being something that only academics need to practice to being something ubiquitous to social living

Did I suggest that all critical thinking should be restricted to Biology? No. I think that each individual subject should teach critical thinking as it's most relevant to them in an integrated manner. For example, there's not much point learning about ad hominem fallacies in science but it's a useful topic in English. I took an AS level in Critical Thinking a couple of years back and my experience was that it tended to limit the thinking involved to the CT classroom: specific training in my History and Philosophy classes was infinitely more valuable.

The Internet, scientific? Have you seen the state of the thing? It's as jumbled and hacky an invention as you could ever imagine, with politics and finances dominating far more of its structure than good system design, experimentation or logical, reasonable thought.

I think you're missing the point: politics and finance aren't required to make the Internet work. Electricity is, information theory is, number theory is.

I know what you're trying to say, but the idea of Science as "Best" is still ultimately subjective, even if probably justified from your perspective.

I'd like to hear an explanation of why, if there's another method of finding learning about reality which is better than science, it doesn't produce such successful results.

We'll consider teaching creationism in school when the pope starts teaching evolution in his sermons.

I take the same attitude towards creationism being taught in science class as religion being mixed with politics. Here's what I say to that:

Seperation of Church and State:
"Religion is a personal choice about faith, where as Politics is a science of logic and reason. Never the two shall meet."

Works the same towards evolution.
Creationism NOT being taught in science class:
"Religion is a personal choice about faith, where as science is a study of logic and reason. Never the two shall meet."

It's already happening.

Unfortunately, that's only half the story. Vardy's Christian beliefs are shared by John Burn, sometime head of Emmanuel College and now education adviser to the Vardy Foundation, and Nigel McQuoid, principal at the King's Academy. Papers they have co-authored give a flavour of their stance: "If relativist philosophy is acceptable, then sadomasochism, bestiality and self-abuse are to be considered as wholesome activities," runs one. "It is very important that young people begin to realise that activities which are 'private and personal' often degrade oneself and are not necessarily good and acceptable." By way of clarifying the latter position, McQuoid recently told the Observer that "the Bible says clearly that homosexual activity is against God's design. I would indicate that to young folk."

Most notoriously, Vardy schools accord equal importance to both creationism and theories of evolution. According to McQuoid, though state schools are required to teach evolutionary theory, "also, schools should teach the creation theory as literally depicted in Genesis". The 300-year reign of the enlightenment apparently counts for very little: in his view, creation and evolution are both "faith positions". Blair, it should be noted, has claimed to have no problem with such a stance. In 2002, when asked by the Liberal Democrat MP Jenny Tonge if he was happy about creationism being taught alongside evolution in state schools, he replied, "I am very happy. I know that the honourable lady is referring to a school in the north-east [ie, Emmanuel College], and I think that certain reports about what it has been teaching are somewhat exaggerated. It would be very unfortunate if concerns about that issue were seen to remove the very strong incentive to ensure that we get as diverse a school system as we properly can."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2005/jan/15/features.politics

And that says nothing of the thousands of already existing state supported CofE, Roman Catholic, Muslim, Jewish and Hindu schools already operating in the UK. In Northern Ireland there are only a handful of schools that aren't segregated Catholic or Protestant institutions, as far as I am aware. To cap that all off, I sang hymns, went to Church and prayed in assembly in an ordinary 'secular' state school.

It's a funny reflection of New Labour policy. On one hand, Cabinet ministers like Blair, Browne and Kelly (ugh!) hold very strong religious beliefs and have allowed a system of religious indoctrination to not just continue but expand and caused enough of a fuss over embryonic stem cell research and abortion (the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Act) to force a free vote (which passed unamended - ha!). On the other hand, the religious education system has been expanded to all faiths, rather than just Christianity or even Abrahamic religion, prohibition on discrimination by sexuality (to the derision of the DUP), civil unions and same sex adoption, repealed Section 28, and even invoked the Parliament Act to override the House of Lords's veto over bringing the age of consent for homosexual sex in line with hetrosexual sex. All this did tread on enough toes for Scottish Catholic Bishops to publicly announce that Catholics should not vote Labour.

What a funny age we live in.

cretinism is the way the universe was made
Ah, that explains everything!

We'll consider teaching creationism in school when the pope starts teaching evolution in his sermons.

Oh, that might come back to bite you in the arse... the pope does recognise evolution.

Oh, that might come back to bite you in the arse... the pope does recognise evolution.

As usual the Catholic Church will get into what is fashionable, even if it takes them a few decades... Now for those condoms :rolleyes:

As usual the Catholic Church will get into what is fashionable, even if it takes them a few decades... Now for those condoms :rolleyes:

Oh, they recognized it years ago. I think it was John Paul's predecessor, or the one before that guy. The Catholic Church has been pretty damn good at accepting science. Galileo burned them bad, and they know it.

Oh, they recognized it years ago. I think it was John Paul's predecessor, or the one before that guy. The Catholic Church has been pretty damn good at accepting science. Galileo burned them bad, and they know it.

I thought it would have been John Paul II at the very latest, which is why I said decades, not centuries. I'm still pressing on the contraceptives note though:$

I thought it would have been John Paul II at the very latest, which is why I said decades, not centuries. I'm still pressing on the contraceptives note though:$

Well, it'd be hard-pressed to be centuries, since the ToE was formulated what, a bit over 150 years ago?

I've got no problem with that:

Student: "Sir, did God create the world in six days?"
Teacher: "No"
[/exploration]

If they've got time to kill the teacher could always indulge in a lengthier discussion:

Student: "Sir, did God create the world in six days?"
Teacher: "No"
Student: "But my pastor says He did!"
Teacher: "Your pastor is an idiot."
[/exploration]



This.


Seriously, Im all for mentiong creationism as a world view that some people hold. Tell the truth about it.

Creationism is a world view held by idiots and inbreeding red necks who think the earth is only 10,000 years old and that any sort of evidence that disproves their cute little theory is promptly ignorned.

Creationism is a world view held by idiots and inbreeding red necks who think the earth is only 10,000 years old and that any sort of evidence that disproves their cute little theory is promptly ignorned.
That'd be Young Earth Creationism, not Creationism per se.

There's many, many sensible, intelligent, rational people who believe that the Universe was created by an intelligence, and who's thinking is in line with current scientific findings.

I disagree: very few students will ever need to remember the details of photosynthesis but everyone can benefit from learning scepticism and scientific method. I don't see the need to split it into a separate class: I expect a science teacher to teach science, whether that means facts, scientific theory or scientific methodology. Separating the classes will only reinforce the idea that science is a dusty subject concerned with memorising facts rather than a dynamic one which relies on original and critical thought.

^This.

A big part of the problem with science education is that there isn't enough time spent explaining to students that science is a method. It comes across as a bunch of memorized "facts" that students are essentially expected to take on faith. This leaves science as just another authority figure, with little in the minds of non-scientists to differentiate it from other accepted authority figures (ie. religious leaders). And then when, after being taught a list of "facts", the "facts" change (ie. the theory is altered to fit new data), science suddenly looks like a shakier source than the absolutes of religion.

You can teach students about current theories all day long and they still won't understand science. The most important goal of science education should be for students to understand what science is - and the to be able to critically examine methods, etc. on their own. And they should understand how science, as a method, is different from other sources of information.

Honestly, I think creationism can be useful in a science class - as a subject on which this contrast can be shown. It doesn't have to be done in a derogatory manner, of course. But, given the conflicts over creationism and ID, they are perfect examples that a science teacher can use to draw a distinction between science and non-science.

Creationism is not a scientifically based theory, but a religious one. Therefore, it has no place in science lessons. Simple.
This. I call threadwin on this post.

There's many, many sensible, intelligent, rational people who believe that the Universe was created by an intelligence, and who's thinking is in line with current scientific findings.

Over here we dont call that creationism. They call that Intellegent Design.

Over here we dont call that creationism. They call that Intellegent Design.
No, they don't.

Proponents of 'Intelligent Design' actively oppose current scientific findings, especially evolution.

See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design).

That'd be Young Earth Creationism, not Creationism per se.

There's many, many sensible, intelligent, rational people who believe that the Universe was created by an intelligence, and who's thinking is in line with current scientific findings.

In line with scientific findings in the sense that no findings suggest that the universe wasn't created by an intelligence, or in the sense that there are findings which suggest that the universe was created by an intelligence?

In line with scientific findings in the sense that no findings suggest that the universe wasn't created by an intelligence, or in the sense that there are findings which suggest that the universe was created by an intelligence?


God just liked big explosions to start existence off. :tongue:

I concur. We must take immediate action to stop the stoopid from spreading.

Clearly the Americans cannot respect the culture of foreign countries they are in, thus we must bar Americans from visiting or immigrating to Britain and Europe or the whole continent will turn into Amer-abia.

[/sarcasm]

Even if it's true it's not education? Does this mean a history teacher is no longer allowed to tell students that, all other things being equal, an unbiased source written by an eye-witness is better than a piece of anecdotal evidence heard by someone with an axe to grind?
In what context? If you want to find out about the opinion of the public at the time, you might well find the anecdote to be of more value, when combined with other sources of opinion, than someone with a pretense of neutrality (and how can you tell whether or not an eye-witness is unbiased anyway? There are tells that can give away when someone is twisting things, but consistency and neutral tone doesn't always mean that someone doesn't have an opinion of their own, even if it gives interesting new insight backed by other sources).

See, this is what I mean. "Better" is an assertion, by you, of value. When it comes to evaluating history, a kid will listen to you and think "Right, okay, so you use this source here, because it acts as the neutral perspective", regurgitating your approach to history having absorbed your system of what is right to use where. But value isn't something that you can just impose on someone - at least, not if you want to encourage kids to think critically. The ideal is that the kid thinks (hopefully long before any attempt at examination) "Okay, so this is what the source is. I know a few techniques that I can apply that might make use of this source, and I know a few things about history that this source might shed some new perspective on, so let's try to explore what this source means in terms of our understanding." Or something. Hey, it's been 3 years since I last studied history, give me a break.

Kid two might, in the end of the day, give exactly the same answer as Kid one, and get the same mark and grade, but who has the better understanding of the study of History? Rather than get settled in to a series of inherited assumptions, the ideal is for kids to realize for themselves what constitutes value in Historical method.

But we shouldn't be delaying the start of science education until they've been through a seperate 'thinking skills' course: by combining the two they can both be started simultaneously.
You don't even need to combine the two to start them simultaneously. In fact, Scientific method in education today isn't really taught to kids until at least year 8. Science, for younger kids, is about teaching awareness of the physical world and introducing the language of the Scientific model. Kids in primary education are still trying to get to grips with the fact that there is a world out there and how to interact with it.

What I propose is that this "thinking skills" course is introduced at basic principles from the mid primary level (~KS1), with the teaching of the language and awareness of discourse alongside maths, science and literature. You know, simple questions like "What does important mean?" and "What makes people right?". At the minute, fundamental issues like value judgement, decision-making, justification, conflicting opinion, ethics and so on are being left unaddressed by both schools and parents until it's far too late to deal with them because only a feeble attempt to teach kids how to talk about them has been made (largely by Religious institutions, and that is a serious smear on the secular record, by the way).

I'm not suggesting a full-on Philosophy course for 5-year olds here; just that we lay down the basic terminology and techniques that allow kids to think in terms of language, interpretation, exploration, reason and so on. Application of these ideas is generally what secondary education is about, so why not lay the groundwork before kids get that far?

I've often seen it posted here(generally in threads related to the age of consent) that the brains of children and teenagers are not sufficiently developed for them to think critically in the same way adults do. This leads to them doing stupid things and making bad decisions. Considering that, it seems an exercise in futility to try and teach them how to think critically when they're physically incapable of it.

So what do ye Brits think of this.
Makes me glad I don't have kids.

I've often seen it posted here(generally in threads related to the age of consent) that the brains of children and teenagers are not sufficiently developed for them to think critically in the same way adults do. This leads to them doing stupid things and making bad decisions. Considering that, it seems an exercise in futility to try and teach them how to think critically when they're physically incapable of it.
If you're implying that there's something physiological about critical thinking ability, then my obvious first request will be for some external backing. Teaching literature out there seems to be much more open to the prospect of teaching kids to think for themselves than an understanding that "They can't handle it" would recommend.

If, on the other hand, it isn't physiological, then I'd flip the point on you - how can you expect kids to be anything but impulsively stupid if you haven't taught them how to think about their own thoughts? Surely that would be all the more reason to teach them as early as possible about it?

I've often seen it posted here(generally in threads related to the age of consent) that the brains of children and teenagers are not sufficiently developed for them to think critically in the same way adults do. This leads to them doing stupid things and making bad decisions. Considering that, it seems an exercise in futility to try and teach them how to think critically when they're physically incapable of it.

Seeing as brain tissue does not regenerate (i.e. from birth it's all downwards), I find that hard to believe. Surely cramming stuff into kids as soon as possible is desirable - which is why it is a lot easier to teach kids foreign languages (the sooner the better), playing musical instruments (again the sooner the better) and so on, and these things stay on for the rest of their lives. If anything, absolving them from thought or opinion for the first 12 years of their lives does more to lower intelligence in the general population than even the education system.

If you're implying that there's something physiological about critical thinking ability, then my obvious first request will be for some external backing.
I've read here that there is, IMS. And it does seem reasonable.
Seeing as brain tissue does not regenerate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurogenesis

In line with scientific findings in the sense that no findings suggest that the universe wasn't created by an intelligence, or in the sense that there are findings which suggest that the universe was created by an intelligence?
The former.

We shouldn't tar all creationists with the same nutty Y.E.C. brush.

What I propose is that this "thinking skills" course is introduced at basic principles from the mid primary level (~KS1), with the teaching of the language and awareness of discourse alongside maths, science and literature... we lay down the basic terminology and techniques that allow kids to think in terms of language, interpretation, exploration, reason and so on. Application of these ideas is generally what secondary education is about, so why not lay the groundwork before kids get that far?
Exactly my position.

And, thankfully, there are a number of pioneering efforts here in the UK to do just that. Clackmannanshire Council (a central Scottish local council) have pushed a 'Thinking Through Philosophy' course, aimed at primary school children with some very (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6330631.stm) interesting (http://www.clacksweb.org.uk/council/press/?release=1024) results.

I've often seen it posted here(generally in threads related to the age of consent) that the brains of children and teenagers are not sufficiently developed for them to think critically in the same way adults do. This leads to them doing stupid things and making bad decisions. Considering that, it seems an exercise in futility to try and teach them how to think critically when they're physically incapable of it.

Their brains aren't fully developed, therefore they are physically incapable of critical thinking? That's a bit of a stretch. Sure, children don't always consider the consequences of their actions. But then, neither do adults.

Come to think of it, I can't have been more than 12 or so when I first heard about Pascal's Wager*, but I was perfectly capable of spotting some of the flaws in it.

* You know the one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

I've read here that there is, IMS. And it does seem reasonable.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurogenesis

I stand corrected. Still, kids are far better at accumulating large amounts of information in a short time.

Their brains aren't fully developed, therefore they are physically incapable of critical thinking? That's a bit of a stretch. Sure, children don't always consider the consequences of their actions. But then, neither do adults.

Come to think of it, I can't have been more than 12 or so when I first heard about Pascal's Wager*, but I was perfectly capable of spotting some of the flaws in it.

* You know the one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager
Maybe not incapable, but less capable.
I stand corrected. Still, kids are far better at accumulating large amounts of information in a short time.

So they say. I forget why, if I ever knew.

Well, it's a sort of obvious as the light of day thing. On night when I was 8 I read half an illustrated scientific encyclopaedia, and I still remembered almost all of that when I was 16.

Of course, since puberty and alcoholism my memory has been pretty much shot.

Maybe not incapable, but less capable.


Then get 'em started.
After all, you wouldn't ditch PE lessons just because the kids aren't physically ready to compete with adults.

Oh noes! The Uk is full of backwards fundies!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7612152.stm

So what do ye Brits think of this.
Michael Reiss can kiss my arse.