Classroom Clashes Over Science Education 493
cheezitmike writes "In a two-part series, the American Academy for the Advancement of Science examines two hot-button topics that create clashes in the classroom between science teachers and conservative-leaning students, parents, school boards, and state legislatures. Part 1 looks at the struggle of teachers to cover evolution in the face of religious push-back from students and legislatures. Part 2 deals with teaching climate change, and how teachers increasingly have to deal with political pressure from those who insist that there must be two sides to the discussion."
Why 2 sides (Score:5, Insightful)
why not teach the science consensus? (Score:5, Insightful)
Climate change: the majority of climate scientists think it's true and a component is man-made, but a small and decreasing percentage of climate scientists disagree.
Evolution: There's all but no doubt, and essentially no reputable scientists in the field disagree with the core concepts.
QED.
Re:Won't ever have a decent debate... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bigger Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
They're trying [wikipedia.org] to, but they're getting resistance for that, too: With few exceptions, teachers' unions fight against efforts to ground teacher evaluation in data and simultaneously resist giving administrators the discretion to remove teachers. [time.com]
Sure... (Score:5, Insightful)
...as long as all churches are required to have an atheist (e.g., Daniel Dennet) or a historic biblical scholar (e.g., Bart D. Ehrman) come in for every sermon or Sunday school lesson to present an alternative viewpoint.
Re:why not teach the science consensus? (Score:3, Insightful)
"What does the word 'concensus' have to do with science?"
Everything. Scientific consensus matters in almost every field of science: if you're some one off guy claiming something, that's about useless unless you get a lot of your peers to agree. If they don't agree when you show them the evidence, you're probably just wrong. What's regarded as "scientific truth" comes largely FROM the consensus of the scientists in that field. Sure, it can change, they might all be wrong, blah blah, but that's the best we can really do. If most of the smart people educated highly in area X all thing the same thing, best not to bet against it. If they're divided, well, maybe we don't really know yet.
Virtually no one has the required education to evaluate many claims in many fields themselves. Thus, the 99.99% of us who aren't experts in that field must take the word of the few scientists who are. In that, consensus is everything. If 100% of the scientists all say something is the best theory of the moment, then it probably is. If a few scientists are making a new claim, then it MIGHT be true, but we just don't know yet until things solidify - they might also just be barking up the wrong tree.
Re:Bigger Problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Realistically, you can't. Science is hard and learning about it doesn't pay off in the obvious or self-gratuitous ways that matter to most people. So, the motivation will always be low, lower still if you have to work a job that does not require you to know any science, as most jobs today are.
It is a lost fight, especially in a world in which the future looks increasingly likely to be much bleaker than the past, for everybody.
Science, not religion (Score:5, Insightful)
I would imagine it is the role of the science teacher to educate, not pontificate - if students enter the classroom with different ideas, theories, or beliefs I would expect the teacher to entertain their ideas, beliefs, and theories and then work with the student to understand how their ideas, beliefs and theories balance against scientific facts.
The teacher is not obliged to give equal time to all theories that the students preset, but the science teacher has the task of equiping the students to come to their own conclusions based on facts. A science teacher that can't (or doesn't want to) defend the ideas and concepts they are teaching needs to find another profession.
Religions typically teach the "One True Belief" on a subject and ask the followers to "believe without proof, as an exercise of their faith," not science.
Re:Why 2 sides (Score:5, Insightful)
These are not conservative leaning. They are religious zealots. They need to stop making people right of center seem like that they are all crazed idiots.
Re:Why 2 sides (Score:5, Insightful)
Simple, because it is science class - teach the children, don't dictate to them, welcome their challenges as a sign of an engaged, but misinformed, student and work to inform their decisions.
If a student is forced to accept what is told to him without question by either a person behind a lecturn or behind a pulpit, the pulpit stands a better chance of winning over the student - the church offers snacks.
Re:why not teach the science consensus? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure what your point was - there is debate about the particulars, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be taught.
Climate change is one thing, there are people who argue it isn't even happening. The causes are another thing.
The evidence against climate change basically fell apart, and all but the looniest of loons now cling to the idea that it isn't happening. There is no doubt from any sane person, and it should be taught just as we teach about ice ages.
What causes it is still in doubt, especially since we can't easily separate out whether the earth is in a cooling or warming period, or would be if the influence of man had not happened. The potential causes should be taught as one of those "as yet unresolved" aspects of science that the next generation may be able to give a final answer to. But they need to know there is a question.
Re:Bigger Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't "believe" in either one.
I accept as fact Darwin's theorems concerning evolution based on observation and proven fact. As a Christian, this does not conflict with my beliefs.
I accept on fact that climate change as a constant thing that has happened before mankind and will likely continue afterwards. The only question that remains unsettled (in spite of shouting from either side) is how strongly mankind can and does alter climate, and what, if anything, we could *safely* do to reduce mankind's influences if indeed they are strong enough to provide adverse reactions to the system as a whole.
I limit my beliefs to matters of spiritual faith and of human emotion. Everything else requires hard evidence.
Re:Why 2 sides (Score:5, Insightful)
"If a student is forced to accept what is told to him without question" then the student is not in a science classroom.
However, if when the question is answered with facts and data, the student persists in the Truth of an untenable hypothesis which is not supported by facts and data, the student ought not presume to get a good grade in a science class.
Science is not a religion. I say this as both a scientist, and a religious person.
We might solve a lot of these problems..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do we let politicians write the text books, instead of having a quorum of people in their respective fields with masters degrees? Shouldn't the most educated in their respective fields have a say in what the younger generation is being taught, so they can be more prepared for higher education?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html?_r=1 [nytimes.com]
Re:why not teach the science consensus? (Score:3, Insightful)
You have no understanding of what a proof is in natural sciences. This isn't math, where everything is deductive. It is induction, and it is a numbers game. Furthermore, consensus is a good proxy for whether a scientific theory has been dissected and found valid, or whether it has been discarded for lack of predictive power. Or do you spend your life going over every scientific theory that your life depends on? Of course not. You use the experiences and work of others for that.
Re:Won't ever have a decent debate... (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people aren't sold on the theory. It really doesn't make any sense to a lot of people because 2 controdictory things must happen: the organism must first be best adapted to the environment, and the organism also must have mutations (most of which are not immediately beneficial) to continue change.
Since existing organisms are already in existing environments the first thing you state has been observed and is what most people would call a fact.
Since mutations have also been observed in organisms this would also be considered by most as fact
To continue what I perceive as implied (that these observation can't make evolution happen).
We have also observed that dna is responsible for the traits displayed in the organism. We have observed that if we change that dna, traits of the organism are changed. We have also observed that we can select the largest organism of a given population and that over time the average size of the organism will increase (e.g. cows or strawberries or my fruit flies in 10th grade). We have observed that selection pressures exist in nature so that when the environment changes traits observed in populations change. (loss of sight for organism isolated underground, colors of moths as pollution-soot changes or reproductive ages of fish changing with fishing laws)
We have observed that the same trait can be detrimental in one environment and beneficial in another (pigmentation's benefit/detriment depends largely on latitude; Sickle Cell Anemia depends on the threat of malaria.)
I'm not sure I'm seeing the problem.
Re:Why 2 sides (Score:5, Insightful)
Get the right answers on the test and it shouldn't matter what the student believes. Students should not be graded on beliefs but on results. Generally science classes aren't given essay tests so no philosophy needs to be presented by the student. I've never seen science test that just ask "is evolution a fact", instead they have questions like "what is eohippus" or "what are some of the consequences of a rising global temperature", things that you can answer and get full credit on even if you think the topics are bunk. They can be answered without lying by phrasing certain way (prefix it with "according to many researchers" for example).
The danger here is rejecting one dogma and replacing it with a different dogma. And this danger becomes apparent when you see statements that a student should fail because of their beliefs, or that a scientist is fired because of it.
Why is it so hard to purge the idiots? (Score:4, Insightful)
We don’t let people who can’t read teach kids how to read.
We don’t let people who can’t add/subtract teach kids math.
It should just be a hiring requirement for science teaches that they accept evolution as fact.
Re:Bigger Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
"Namely that there has never been an observed case of one species becoming another species (species being defined by the ability to reproduce withing the species, but not outside of it)"
Only, of course, while a rare event (it couldn't be otherwise) it *has* been observed and even produced in a lab. See i.e. http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/speciation.php [sciencemeetsreligion.org]
But even if that wasn't the case, it so obvious that darwinian evolution *must* happen that there would be no point discussing it anyway: as soon as you know that there are random mutations (trivially probed in a lab), that these mutations affect fitness (trivially probed in a lab) and that fitness affects alleles distribution (trivially probed in a lab), speciation is nothing but an unavoidable fact.
"My point is that there are legitimate alternative theories besides evolution"
No, there aren't. There are legitimate *ideas* about evolution (i.e. lamarkian versus darwinian) already disproved that nevertheless make for a good case about how scientific ideas get concieved and accepted or rejected.
Re:Why 2 sides (Score:5, Insightful)
another danger (Score:5, Insightful)
If the religious parents of a child explain "give the answers they want even though we know they are wrong thanks to the Bible," the fact remains that the student is being exposed to evidence that undermines his faith.
This is what the religious practitioners all fear. When a young and impressionable mind is exposed to challenging information, no amount of preparation can prevent at least some of it from making an impression. So, it is not sufficient to keep religious discussions in the church and to allow secular discussions at school. Any exposure to religion-undermining memes *at all* is a threat to parent's goal of keeping control over their child's beliefs.
No amount of enlightened philosophizing will convince such parents that it is ok to keep secular education secular. And telling them to send their kid to private school is no good either; most religious parents either can't or won't pay for it. They want the property-tax-funded public education for their child, and they want to filter out anything that might challenge their religious beliefs, and they are going to fight for this tooth and nail.
You can't silence them through rational argument. There is no convincing them, and we are stuck with them. Your only option is to get just as involved, and just as pushy, and just as loud as they are.
Re:Bigger Problem (Score:4, Insightful)
One person sees the glass half full, the other sees it half empty. You see a world that looks increasingly likely to be bleaker while I see a world that looks better and better with pollution levels going down and a world which looks better and is warming.
Its all a matter of perspective. But if we constantly tell children they are stupid and their parents are stupid, you are doing no good to helping matters. The children are neither stupid nor smart (same goes for parents.) (As GF says.) The problem is those who constantly tell people they are stupid and they have no hope in learning science. There is always hope to teach science, but the building blocks will never be there if people have this insane idea that they are smarter then anyone else and that most people are just stupid monkeys.
Attribution error (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:why not teach the science consensus? (Score:5, Insightful)
Prove to me that a+b=b+a, for all values of a and b.
Don't just say it's obvious. Don't just give a few examples and assume it will always work. Don't just subtract b from each side, unless you're prepared to prove that b-b=0 and a+0=0+a. Provide a rigorous proof.
Back from Wikipedia? Good. Now tell me again how we shouldn't have our students trust in scientific consensus, and how they should have to review the evidence and decide for themselves. Because right now, the commutative property is taught by appeal to authority. Teacher says it always works, so it always works. In your world, we would have to give each kid a copy of Principia Mathematica and wish them luck. Except PM has its own critical flaws, so I suppose we'll also need to introduce them to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. Oh, but we can't trust in the translations of experts, so better teach them German first.
The fact is that people (children in particular) are not equipped to evaluate the truthfulness of every statement. We must trust in the consensus of the experts. The alternative is for society to regress to a point where it was possible for a single person to know all of human knowledge. I'm sure the creationists would love that.
Re:Why 2 sides (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why 2 sides (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why 2 sides (Score:5, Insightful)
"Why 2 sides to discussions that have been scientifically settled?"
Because in America, the opinion of someone who has a 10'th grade education is equal to that of someone who has a PhD in geology on how old the Earth is.
Because USA USA USA USA USA!
I wish I was exaggerating.
--
BMO
Re:why not teach the science consensus? (Score:4, Insightful)
Prove to me that a+b=b+a, for all values of a and b.
Don't just say it's obvious. Don't just give a few examples and assume it will always work.
Umm, that's exactly how the vast majority of science works. We observe a few examples and assume it will always work that way (or at least under whatever constraints the theory was set up with).
The GP was talking about fallacies in inductive logic. You respond by requesting a formal proof in deductive logic. These things don't tend to play by the same rules. The vast majority of science is not prepared to (and is rarely required to) be as reductionist as trying to prove something like the commutative property of addition. (By the way, what axioms are we allowed? Peano? Zermelo-Fraenkel? Unless you have a specific purpose in requesting this bizarre exercise in mathematical analysis in a discussion about empirical science, your choice would be arbitrary anyway, since this has very little to do with the logic of empiricism....)
The fact is that people (children in particular) are not equipped to evaluate the truthfulness of every statement.
Umm, what the hell is "truth" as applied to inductive logic as practiced in scientific empiricism?
I definitely agree with your point that we, of necessity, have to trust in the opinion of experts. But the rest of your argument about logic is frankly a non sequitur, given that we're talking about science here, not Russell and Whitehead. Science is not formal logic. But that doesn't mean that the scientific method doesn't make use of logic -- but not really the type you're talking about here.
Aside from your general point about the necessity of relying on authority, I have no clue why this was modded +5 "Insightful".
Re:why not teach the science consensus? (Score:4, Insightful)
If they don't agree when you show them the evidence, you're probably just wrong.
You mean like continental drift theory, quasicrystals, evolution, and bacterial peptic ulcers? I'm not disagreeing that consensus is necessary to lend validity to a scientific theory, but science is incredibly skeptical, conservative, and resistant to new ideas; the whole point of science, really, is to keep presenting evidence in the face of doubt. Eventually, if no one can refute your hypothesis with their own evidence, they will grudgingly accept it. The next generation of scientists will then grow up accepting it as fact and doubting an whole new generation of correct ideas.
Re:Why 2 sides (Score:5, Insightful)
Let science deniers walk the talk (Score:3, Insightful)
Let people who don't believe in evolution be forbidden from accessing those medical treatments which are completely, 100% dependent on researchers understanding the ultra-fine details of the evolutionary process and, in fact, dependent on evolution being true for their advancement.
That pretty much covers everything from the proper use of antibiotics and the avoidance of MRSA, to gene therapy, to the attenuation process that creates vaccines and the defense they give against diseases like polio, rubella and smallpox. Let's see then there's pathogen tracking, so no CDC information for them oh and molecular epidemiology also.
Oh and here's one just for deniers, the molecules being developed which are capable of binding to bioterrorists agents like anthrax spores and ricin molecules are of course entirely dependent on the artificial, directed evolutionary processes utilized by the biotechnology industry.
Yes deniers, let's create a generation of students who don't believe in evolution but who do believe you can pray away the gay. What a fucking shining city on a hill we'll become under that regime.
Re:Why 2 sides (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why 2 sides (Score:4, Insightful)
Religion played a very different role than you think.