Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Buffy
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 think UncleAl came up with a
viable solution for the younger students in our hypothetical education scenario. Also, consider
my response to it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Buffy
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."
|
I agree, really, even though I don't believe that all things "evolved" from a big bang of whatever substance. Students need to know the current theories of course
as well as their strengths and weaknesses (as indicated by evidence.) Of course, only those with some supporting evidence should be allowed if we're attempting an evidence-focused approach.
Indeed, kids need to learn the theories
more fully, believe it or not. Students should be taken through a theory's conception and evolution (think BB and relativity,) all the way to its eventual demise or acceptance. This would be a great tool in showing students the progress of a methodology based on evidence and why things are done this way.
To often, though, the only theories in the curricula are those thought to be empirical, or close to it. As soon as consensus sways, textbooks completely replace those theories with others. Then what we have is different generations with opposing educations and contrasted conceptions of "scientific truth." When the fact is that science IS a method, a method of evaluating evidence, and we should present it that way to kids. It is not a collection of laws and theories, even though it has a heaping accumulation of such.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Buffy
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."
|
Right. This is at the other end of the spectrum from theory-focused education, and equally unrealistic. Schools don't have to forsake theories to teach methodology. I think they are hesitant precisely because they assume this. But, when we venture into the middle of this spectrum, teaching both theories and evidence/methodology, the issue becomes not which to teach, but which of the two gets priority.
From here, I argue that evidence and methodology should get a supreme favor over any theory, allowing students to not only argue lesser-accepted theories, but also to use this method in some cases to re-validate some empirical theories, not to disprove them of course, but to understand them better. They kind of already do this when a teacher drops a light and heavy object at the same time to demonstrate the Equivalence Principle. We just need to carry this method of teaching to new heights. Perhaps a deeper understanding will be realized by some kid that hasn't yet dawned on scientists.
I realize I'm in danger of eliminating ID from consideration of a evidence-based curricula *applause from crowd*, but I don't think so. In fact, I'm gambling on the opposite. I'm just not yet prepared to post much in the forums, yet. I've still got to verify different things, elaborate on others, and streamline the "package." I'm a stickler for presentation. It seems all to often, poor communication does more harm than good.
