|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,817 Year: 4,074/9,624 Month: 945/974 Week: 272/286 Day: 33/46 Hour: 5/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Do the flaws in education discredit the discpline being taught? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Randman (and in the past others) have said that because 'overstatements' 'misrepresentations' 'lies', and 'fraud' have made it into the school textbooks (or been taught by teachers, made it into documentaries etc etc), it discredits the discipline (ie evolutionary biology). Whether or not these things are misrepresentations (et al) is not a major element to this debate, but rather whether or not this standard should be applied to other subjects:
When I was in school I was taught: That people in the 15th Century thought the earth was flat, that Christopher Columbus proved them wrong, and that he was the first to America: This is clearly false, Eratosthenes calculated the circumferance of the earth about 200 years before Christ was born. People did get to America before Columbus. Does this clearly false representation discredit the discipline of 15th century (and before) history? So, this topic should cover two things. 1. Any other examples of things we were taught at school, which scholars of the subject knew (at the time) were inaccurate, grossly wrong, or similar. 2. Does this education issue reflect badly on the scholars of the discipline being taught. Is it indicative of a conspiracy, or a cover up or propaganda or anything, or is there a more benign explanation? This message has been edited by Modulous, Thu, 01-December-2005 09:24 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminWounded Inactive Member |
This seems like a pretty interesting topic. Did you have any particular feelings as to a forum, I would have thought either the 'Education..' or 'Is it science' forum would be most suitable.
I think there is a typo in your first numbered point new -> knew. TTFN, AW
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
cheers for the typo alert.
I reckon that Education is the best bet, since I'd like to include any education discipline rather than just science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminWounded Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
The most obvious example that comes to my mind is the Bohr atom. This is still a standard in many phsyics and even chemistry textbooks, or at least it was while I was at school.
The model is widely recognised as an inaccurate, possibly even misleading, representation of an atom. Of course that doesn't stop it being an immensely informative model for explaining any number of features of the atom. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The most obvious example that comes to my mind is the Bohr atom. Good one! The amount of people I knew who had a hard time when they took up A-Level chemistry is astonishing. One of the big problems they had was the fact the Bohr model was basically thrown out the window.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
The reason is students are exposed to an incredible level of material pushing evolution as virtually an established fact from the time they are toddlers for the rest of their lives.
There is very little or next to no criticism ever presented, unless they watch or read some creationist or ID material. So from popular culture, and then reinforced from middle school, high school and into college, they are taught a set of "proofs" for evolution. Wells did well, imo, to call these "proofs" the icons of evolution. So the basic paradigm has been pushed via indoctrination and based often on faulty evidentiary claims. I would say the media and educational messages involved with evolution constitute the largest and most intense media propaganda and indoctrination campaign, if you want to look at it that way, in the history of mankind to date. So the student of science, by the time he gets to a higher level, is faced with a group of people so indoctrinated into the idea ToE is essentially a fact no reasonable person can disagree with, that it doesn't even matter to most if the evidentiary claims are now shown to have been exagerrated. In a very real sense, the presentation of ToE is sort of an unscripted brainwashing multi-media effort that not surprisingly makes objective analysis very difficult, imo. In other words, the paradigm has been set, and so although plenty of disagreement is allowed within the existing paradigm of ToE, no dissent is allowed without severe repercussions of the basic paradigm itself. This message has been edited by randman, 12-01-2005 05:07 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
What part of 'other subjects' did you not understand?
TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
OK. So how does this differ from, for example: the flat earth fallacy?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I think that it is very important to separate science from most other areas of education. In science, the basic knowledge base, and thus the half-life of knowledge is contantly changing. It is inevitable, particularly during the earliest phases of teaching a subject where many things are simplified to ease introduction, and when looking at the state-of-the-art where the knowledge base is being expanded, that there will be errors.
But... this is also one of the greatest strengths of science. Unlike religion, science has a builtin correction method. It is the publish, review, replicate and independant verification process that is the hallmark of science. Many other areas, for example history, really do have many flaws. Those flaws though usually stem from a parochial viewpoint during the teaching process. Unlike science, instruction is history really sucks. Speaking primarily of US public schools, we do a lousy job of teaching where we failed in the past. The result is that we continue to make the same mistakes over and over again. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
The model is widely recognised as an inaccurate, possibly even misleading, representation of an atom. Of course that doesn't stop it being an immensely informative model for explaining any number of features of the atom. I think the example you've given here is illustrative of a general pedagogical truth, that to teach something you have to simplify, and simplification is misleading. Nonetheless, the simplification has enough of a kernal of truth to be very helpful to the student. Another thing you have to do to teach something is to methodize it. Now if you are teaching a certain skill that is not conducive to methodization, you are going to end up actually falsifying to beginners the actual way that people who are skilled in the subject go about their business. My example is the teaching of writing. I teach it. I have to methodize. That's a falsification. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-01-2005 07:44 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
1. Any other examples of things we were taught at school, which scholars of the subject knew (at the time) were inaccurate, grossly wrong, or similar.
Interesting that you bring this up. I'm just finishing an Operating Systems class (as teacher). When discussing virtual storage, I gave a greatly over-simplified account. I did make it clear that it was oversimplified. And I did later come back and correct it. The reason was that I wanted to concentrate on memory management, and not get tied down to hardware details. It seems to me that it is often good pedagogical strategy to simplify some parts, and exaggerate others, when the aim is concept teaching rather than skills mastery.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Do you really mean exaggerate? Could you give an example?
I can see the benefit of focusing very narrowly on something but I'm not sure what one could justifiably exaggerate except perhaps for the importance of a paticular topic. TTFN, wK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RobertFitz Inactive Member |
Hi Modulous
As a teacher I think that you are overstating the fact that we may be guilty of a vast institutionalized conspiracy. Surely in todays world you have to consider that we are learning many new things, which will always need to be updated, especially in the sciences. As to the 15th centaury, the only history book most people in Europe had was the bible, which was accepted as entirely true, as were a wide range of legends and folklore. Things have changed, and so has what we teach today. Also I would take issue with your initial statement citing flaws in education. More correctly it should be flaws/ gaps in the knowlege that we teach, which we all strive to amend. In consequence we who teach, pass on knowledge which enables other more brilliant minds to expand the borders of human achievement and knowledge. But to answer your question, no, how it can it discredit any discipline, as long as that discipline is willing to change along with what we learn.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
I think that it is not a problem for the disciplines standing. What is taught has been through the mill of digestion of the various processes involved in developing a standardised curriculum for young minds, it iis not representative of the academic research communities latest findings or even extant paradigms.
Certainly if all that is done is to teach 'facts' by rote then if these facts are incorrect the student will have absolutely no worthwhile grounding for study at the level of higher education, and indeed many universities already claim this is the case and that their 1st years often have to be taught how to approach a topic virtually from scratch. So the probelm for the disciplines is a rather ill-informed and ill-prepared pool of students from which the next generation of researchers must be drawn. If on the other hand what is being taught is a methodology and an approach to research and critical analysis of various sources then the actual 'facts' are relatively unimportant, as the student will be adequately equipped to re-evaluate them in the light of new evidence. I fear that this is rarely how teaching is approached in primary or secondary education however. TTFN, WK
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024