Hey, South, all good points. I could only disagree with what you're saying if I was taking the absolutist position of saying only one "truth" should be taught, which I'm not, so I won't disagree! Its important to realize that teaching of critical thinking is not limited to teaching only the method, the critical step in any learning process is to show examples and then provide homework or projects or papers to write where the student has to think for themselves. And to drive the point home, this should be done with both clear-cut as well as grey issues, so that people get the feel for both, just as they'll run into in the real world.
The only thing I like to draw the line on is exactly what you point out:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Southtown
...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?
|
Which is why when something veers into religious belief, its not a good idea to "teach" it. The point I'm trying to make of course is that there is a distinction between science and belief systems, and what is of concern to me is the the notion that belief systems are trying to gain a foothold is school curricula by saying "we're exactly like science! its all the same thing!" This ends up being a big can of worms of course, because you all of a sudden have to give "equal time" to everyone, so we gotta get the Hindu and Wiccan views in too (although of course this is simplified by the folks that say that America is a "Christian Nation" so all other theologies should be left out because they are minor as well as being wrong!). Attacking this notion by saying "science is a religious belief" does a disservice to science and society as well as deeply religious scientists past present and future. What I'd really like to get a discussion going on here is what is that distinction that differentiates the two, And I'm convinced that the core of that is what is the *essence* of critical thinking, and acceptance of a scientific consensus as a foundation is an absolute requirement.
I think you catch most of my drift when you say:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Southtown
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?
|
And unfortunately, what people who are advocating certain contentious issues be introduced to 13 year olds, *not* as part of a critical thinking exercise but as simply a requirement to expose them to one other wholly unsubstantiated belief system without any pointers as to its inapplicapbility as a scientific theory is tantamount to that fastball.
I have a hard time believing that the best way to teach critical thinking is simply to say, as some others argue, "here's the methodology, look at all of the alternative theories and come to your own conclusions, and we don't want to give you *any* examples because that would be biased: you're smart enough to figure it out on your own." Why bother teaching *any* math or science, its all "beliefs" right? It all might be overturned tomorrow by the next discovery since none of it is "proven", and if we told you *anything* about why most people seem to believe one of these many theories that we're throwing at you, then you'll think we're biased and you will lose all faith in anything. Just trust your brain."
Oh how I wish we *could* do that, its just that it seems to me that it doesn't fit in with a reality where most folks don't care and never will. Thomas Jefferson would be rolling in his grave...
Cheers,
Buffy
