Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Buffy
As a public policy issue, it is impossible to conceive of a society in which the masses are told "you cannot believe anything you hear. you must decide for yourself and do all your own experiments. all opinions are equally valid and there is no truth."
|
We are educating future scientists. They will inherit the torch in the race for the truth and should be trusted to make their own decisions. We should only teach them discernment. And the reciprocal of religious freedom is a church state, even if the mandate ends up as non-religious. What would qualify as impossible is the control of the peoples' beliefs. Even to attempt it... how inhumane can you get?
And no matter what truth we teach them, if we do not teach discernment first, they will thoughtlessly forsake the truth for whatever else comes along next.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Buffy
The problem is though that in the real world, most people to depend on experts, but what you're advocating is a public education policy of "trust no one."
|
And it got that way by using the current "only teach theory 1 and allow no discussion" approach. Are you afraid that the evidence will point the other way?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Buffy
Is that really a good approach? Especially as our technology and science goes far beyond the ability of even really really smart people to understand a small fraction of everything to any level more than basics?
|
People aren't perfect, and you can't "fix" everbody. That's the common mentality: "We can convince everyone to comply somehow." It just won't work. People will use the generosity as toilet paper. What should suffice is a system that works for those who wish to participate and allows consequences for those who don't. Even if some never turn around, their demise will teach others what consequences go with certain choices. Then they can decide for themselves what to do, and some will take heed. We just can't go around revoking freedom of choice. (Personal philosophy, got it from the bible.)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Buffy
But when it comes to school curricula, its a good idea to teach "what we think is true" and why, along with critical thinking, so that people learn to "trust, but verify".
|
I'm not suggesting we leave them ignorant of current scientific consensus. But, verification would be rather non-involved without comparitive alternatives. You need a couple crash-test dummies that they can sink their mental teeth into and really draw blood, if you know what I mean. Seriously, throw them the easy ones, and they will get a quick feel for discovering superior reasonability. You don't throw three years olds a 90mph fastball, do you?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Buffy
Without that trust we do limit our ability to progress. Does every individual need to re-prove gravity?
|
What does trust have to do with science? I thought it was supposed to be pure scrutiny and peer review. But
trust ? And gravity isn't debated as existing, but the students could benefit from discussing what it might consist of or what might cause it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Buffy
Generally critical thinking is tought by presenting the two views and then *showing how one is correct*. Unfortunately, that is not the goal that is being sought by ID politicians, although the string theory folks have no problem with the notion that the subject should be left for grad students.
|
That level of critical thinking is useful until the students reach opposition, then they're in new territory.
And I can't defend the ID lobby or whatever they're called. I know there's extremists out there who aren't interested in playing ball. My opinion is mine, and its reasoning I have formed myself. Therefore, I know how to argue it, and I know when it's beaten.
