Robbie: true but still misses the point
Robbie- You're correct to ridicule me for not reading the article further. The truth is I still haven't, and don't want to and probably won't. Deal with.
On the other hand, I think you're incorrect about the "teach the controvery" thing. The reason this thing is good is not because I actually believe that this is a valid debate, but because I think that thinking about whether it is a valid debate will benefit our country. There is no scientific legitimacy to the creationists' argument. But you can't find that out until you figure out what science actually is. And that process is what will help us as a country: everybody assumes that we know what science is and what it isn't. But this debate has continued to exist in a violent form, especially in the social sciences. The point is that kids will now have to go to class and ask, "Why are we studying what we're studying in this class?" The answer should be that they are learning about science. But if they have no idea what makes science different from other kinds of thought, they aren't learning anything. That's why you cannot merely say that "we have the evidence". Unless people realize that science is considered authoritative for specific reasons and is not merely another, competing ideology to religion, we will never progress past the dumb christian vs. science controversy. We need to cut their legs out, not just say that we have the evidence. And we can only do that when we are faced with an actual challenge, as we are now. I agree that science will come out on top, but serious work and learning needs to be done before that happens.
In my own (public)high school we learned plenty of chemistry, bio, etc. We learned "the scientific method". But it never reached the point that we realized that "Scientific method" is something that is not just used in biology or physics, but also in the social sciences, and something that has opponents, at least in that area. High School students need to realize why the scientific method, and possibly other methods (in other areas) are important but still controversial. Until we get this kind of meta-thought into young people's minds we cannot expect anything but time to help us accept new theories or paradigms. This kind of education, early early early, could help us move past the sort of "paradigm shift" phenomenon Kuhn talks about.
I'd be happy to hear any other thoughts you have on the issue.
On the other hand, I think you're incorrect about the "teach the controvery" thing. The reason this thing is good is not because I actually believe that this is a valid debate, but because I think that thinking about whether it is a valid debate will benefit our country. There is no scientific legitimacy to the creationists' argument. But you can't find that out until you figure out what science actually is. And that process is what will help us as a country: everybody assumes that we know what science is and what it isn't. But this debate has continued to exist in a violent form, especially in the social sciences. The point is that kids will now have to go to class and ask, "Why are we studying what we're studying in this class?" The answer should be that they are learning about science. But if they have no idea what makes science different from other kinds of thought, they aren't learning anything. That's why you cannot merely say that "we have the evidence". Unless people realize that science is considered authoritative for specific reasons and is not merely another, competing ideology to religion, we will never progress past the dumb christian vs. science controversy. We need to cut their legs out, not just say that we have the evidence. And we can only do that when we are faced with an actual challenge, as we are now. I agree that science will come out on top, but serious work and learning needs to be done before that happens.
In my own (public)high school we learned plenty of chemistry, bio, etc. We learned "the scientific method". But it never reached the point that we realized that "Scientific method" is something that is not just used in biology or physics, but also in the social sciences, and something that has opponents, at least in that area. High School students need to realize why the scientific method, and possibly other methods (in other areas) are important but still controversial. Until we get this kind of meta-thought into young people's minds we cannot expect anything but time to help us accept new theories or paradigms. This kind of education, early early early, could help us move past the sort of "paradigm shift" phenomenon Kuhn talks about.
I'd be happy to hear any other thoughts you have on the issue.
posted by Austin 5-000 at 9:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home