Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Render

Ban to fail students who challenge science

65 posts in this topic

Education, you ever heard of it?

What is the educational benefit to teaching them a hypotesis that has yet to be proven true while not teaching them other hypothesis. just because one is believed by the religious side and the other by the secular side of our society which one has more proof is debatable. which one takes more faith to believe in? If the argument is teaching creation holds our society back in some way my argument is that since we have started teaching evolution we haven't moved forward. In fact a valid argument could be made our society has moved backwards. and I'm just talking educationally I don't want to get into a discussion of all the other facets of our society that are slipping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, exactly. if the massed armies of Experts would devote a bit of their time to considering how people could best adapt to changing climates, (since climates of course always have changed over tiome and always will do), rather than just shouting "Climate change is real and Irreversible,and it's all your fault!! You're destroying Planet Earth!!!!", perhaps the "skeptics" might be more prepared to listen to them. As it is, a,lot of people just tend to dismiss them as just another bunch doom mongers who keep shouting all the time. Really, it's very counterproductive.

The debate about what to do can only begoin when policy makers accept that there is a genuine cause for concern. Due to the activities of vested interests that has not happened and so nop action has been taken. Understanding and accepting the causes is fundamental to formulating the response so fudging the man made origin will ultimately be counter productive as the wrong responses will be taken.

The problem is that fossil fuel interest, who have a vested interest in not addressing the underlying causes have spent billions on promoting the idea that there is nothing that we can do to stop climate change. Hence no action can be taken.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the educational benefit to teaching them a hypotesis that has yet to be proven true while not teaching them other hypothesis. just because one is believed by the religious side and the other by the secular side of our society which one has more proof is debatable. which one takes more faith to believe in? If the argument is teaching creation holds our society back in some way my argument is that since we have started teaching evolution we haven't moved forward. In fact a valid argument could be made our society has moved backwards. and I'm just talking educationally I don't want to get into a discussion of all the other facets of our society that are slipping.

Perhaps less time should be spent teaching evolution and more spent teaching students the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, as clearly there is a sect in your society that's inept at understanding the difference.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps less time should be spent teaching evolution and more spent teaching students the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, as clearly there is a sect in your society that's inept at understanding the difference.

It would certainly be better if our education system equipped us to rationally assess data and come to a reasonable conclusion based on it. However that almost completely the opposite of what education generally sets out to achieve (until masters level at least). In that situation allowing students to entertain the notion that dinosaurs co-existed with man is a slippery slope where fact is impossible to differentiate against fiction.

I say solve the problem with an education system which is geared to produce complaint technicians rather than thinking people - but I suspect that wish is also a fantasy.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the comments miss the point. The proposal bans failing a student for personal belief, not for not knowing the subject. Of course the science classes should teach science and students should show on tests that they learned it. It is none of the teachers business what the student actually believes.

Some of the side comments are unhistorical. The Church never taught that the Earth was the center in any scientific sense, it taught that since God became man on planet Earth then Earth is central in importance. Also: all educated people knew the world is round and knew how big it is, the ancient Greeks calculated it correctly. They also knew that their ships could not make it to China. They did not know about the Americas.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the comments miss the point. The proposal bans failing a student for personal belief, not for not knowing the subject. Of course the science classes should teach science and students should show on tests that they learned it. It is none of the teachers business what the student actually believes.

Some of the side comments are unhistorical. The Church never taught that the Earth was the center in any scientific sense, it taught that since God became man on planet Earth then Earth is central in importance. Also: all educated people knew the world is round and knew how big it is, the ancient Greeks calculated it correctly. They also knew that their ships could not make it to China. They did not know about the Americas.

I don't think this is about banning people from personal belief, although the article is a bit ambiguous on that. The teachers marks are based on test answers, no? So how could they ever have given a student an F for saying they believe in young earth creationism if the student got As on all his tests? No... Clearly the article in question is about preventing a student from failing if they answer test questions with their belief rather than with the correct answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would certainly be better if our education system equipped us to rationally assess data and come to a reasonable conclusion based on it. However that almost completely the opposite of what education generally sets out to achieve (until masters level at least). In that situation allowing students to entertain the notion that dinosaurs co-existed with man is a slippery slope where fact is impossible to differentiate against fiction.

I say solve the problem with an education system which is geared to produce complaint technicians rather than thinking people - but I suspect that wish is also a fantasy.

Br Cornelius

Weirdly, in school, the place I was learned more about rationally assessing things and thinking critically, was Religious Studies (at A level, that is).

Our particular course was Philosophy & Ethics, taught by a Catholic (Catholic school) but he was very good at never attempting to tell us things, but present us with the theory, let us talk about them, pull --certain theories-- to shreds, and then getting us to write what we thought of them. Of course, this was a RE class, where justifying your own opinion with a suitable reason drawn from a fact or theory was enough to get marks.

It was the sciences where it was 1, 2, 3 - these are the facts, learn them, be able to rewrite them in the exam to get a good mark. And that has probably served me less well at university as the 'facts' we learned at A level aren't relevant now, or in too little detail, but being able to critically assess a text given to me has continued to be of use.

Slightly tangential, I know, but realising that made me go 'Woah!' My RE A level was useful after all...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that keyboards were around before the 1960s. I saw a film with a typewriter in once, and that was in Black & White.

typewriters don't connect to the internet. Computers do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the educational benefit to teaching them a hypotesis that has yet to be proven true while not teaching them other hypothesis

Hypothesis are not "proven true" that's the whole point you're missing. There is a preponderance of evidence for a particular theory. They are never proven true. By your logic we should teach the flat earthers and the moon made of cheese.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. computers have been around since yes the 60's the apollo missions were not flown by hand. now granted the computer has been refined since then as has the internet but it was created with 60's tech

You're really funny if you think that's the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypothesis are not "proven true" that's the whole point you're missing. There is a preponderance of evidence for a particular theory. They are never proven true. By your logic we should teach the flat earthers and the moon made of cheese.

okay fine theory then but, preponderance of evidence is and will continue to be debated and again I see no educational benefit to this being required learning. shouldn't it be in some optional theoretical class? as to the earth being flat that was proven wrong thousands of years ago. the moon made of cheese that was one of my favorite Wallace and Gromet shorts :clap:

You're really funny if you think that's the same thing.

yeah I didn't figure you had anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weirdly, in school, the place I was learned more about rationally assessing things and thinking critically, was Religious Studies (at A level, that is).

Our particular course was Philosophy & Ethics, taught by a Catholic (Catholic school) but he was very good at never attempting to tell us things, but present us with the theory, let us talk about them, pull --certain theories-- to shreds, and then getting us to write what we thought of them. Of course, this was a RE class, where justifying your own opinion with a suitable reason drawn from a fact or theory was enough to get marks.

It was the sciences where it was 1, 2, 3 - these are the facts, learn them, be able to rewrite them in the exam to get a good mark. And that has probably served me less well at university as the 'facts' we learned at A level aren't relevant now, or in too little detail, but being able to critically assess a text given to me has continued to be of use.

Slightly tangential, I know, but realising that made me go 'Woah!' My RE A level was useful after all...

very much so. That's what what's so ironic; Religious Studies, or Philosophy of Religion, isn't about indoctrination, but about looking at things critically, you're quite right. Science and Maths was just about facts and repeating those Facts, and you do completely depend on the sources that are telling you these Facts being completely correct and unbiased, don't you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would certainly be better if our education system equipped us to rationally assess data and come to a reasonable conclusion based on it. However that almost completely the opposite of what education generally sets out to achieve (until masters level at least). In that situation allowing students to entertain the notion that dinosaurs co-existed with man is a slippery slope where fact is impossible to differentiate against fiction.

I say solve the problem with an education system which is geared to produce complaint technicians rather than thinking people - but I suspect that wish is also a fantasy.

Br Cornelius

Really? You'd rather the education system just turned out unquesitoning robots that accept what the Experts tell them rather than causing trouble by questioning it? The only thing they should do is rationally assess data, with no room for creativity or questioning the norms that they're presented with? That seems rather... authoritarian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? You'd rather the education system just turned out unquesitoning robots that accept what the Experts tell them rather than causing trouble by questioning it? The only thing they should do is rationally assess data, with no room for creativity or questioning the norms that they're presented with? That seems rather... authoritarian.

You misunderstood my point. I would rather that education teaches students how to think and leaves the facts for them to discover. That is not the purpose of education as it is constituted now so allowing questionable facts into the system is very dangerous because students have almost no ability to differentiate.

Understanding the purpose of education in a modern society means that I understand that we will never transition to a system where thinking is encourages - so unfortunately that means we need a strict curriculum to prevent superstition been tought along with established science.

Unfortunate but true.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weirdly, in school, the place I was learned more about rationally assessing things and thinking critically, was Religious Studies (at A level, that is).

Our particular course was Philosophy & Ethics, taught by a Catholic (Catholic school) but he was very good at never attempting to tell us things, but present us with the theory, let us talk about them, pull --certain theories-- to shreds, and then getting us to write what we thought of them. Of course, this was a RE class, where justifying your own opinion with a suitable reason drawn from a fact or theory was enough to get marks.

It was the sciences where it was 1, 2, 3 - these are the facts, learn them, be able to rewrite them in the exam to get a good mark. And that has probably served me less well at university as the 'facts' we learned at A level aren't relevant now, or in too little detail, but being able to critically assess a text given to me has continued to be of use.

Slightly tangential, I know, but realising that made me go 'Woah!' My RE A level was useful after all...

I appreciate what you are saying here and I value the Religious Education I recieved for similar reasons - but that is very much the exception in education.

Education as constituted now is about producing technically able but socially compliant citizens. Thinking is the last thing that any government want of their citizens and thats why they proscribe that schools teach facts which are necessary to perform productive work.

I recently went through a degree and saw the consequences of this approach. I was a mature student among youths and I saw a total lack of ability to do any critical thinking and a reasonable ability to parrot facts. I also saw a total lack of engagement between the pupils and the subject which is a consequence of producing drones who only expect to get a well paid job for their efforts.

Most technical jobs need skills - but they don't need a person who questions the application of those skills.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.