No, the first step would be to make sure they know that science isn't the only source of knowledge, that when the U.S. was founded, and it was being determined what would be good or bad for it, that science had very little to do with it.
No-one thinks it did, so that step would seem to be superfluous.
Teaching them how to think, not what to think, as one example, would be to make sure they understand what Federalist Paper #10 was about, including the definition of what a 'faction' is.
That would be teaching them what to think.
You don't seem to have answered my question. Let's continue with chemistry as an example. How would you go about teaching chemistry if you taught them not what to think, but how to think?
That's for sure, if we give in to atheist, liberal, global warming factions, all the irreversible problems it is sure to cause could have been avoided if only those who allowed it to happen had known something about the tyrannies of history.
These vague ramblings do not answer my point.
No, history shows that it did.
Well, you and I agree that this is what history shows, but Holocaust deniers say that it shows the opposite. Now, according to you we should teach "a broad spectrum of an issue, even the controversial ones". Wouldn't this include teaching Holocaust denial?
That's not controversial.
Well, there are people who deny it. So yes it is. Should we therefore teach "the broad spectrum"?
I'm sure most atheists/liberals in the scientific community consider any discussion about U.S. financial problems to be "drivel" because most of them don't have even a high school level knowledge of economics.
And those who do would consider what you posted about economics to be drivel.
Of course not, I'm sure atheist liberal courses on critical thinking would include nothing more than science, and have little to do with history, economics, morals, etc.
And this is only one of many things you're wrong about.
™ Version 4.2
