thoughts on science education.
coffeeandink and i were talking about blogging. i said that i thought perhaps my opportunities for news blogging we gone, as i am not nearly as politically literate as most of my friends and, really, what's left for me to say? but then i suggested perhaps environmental or science news blogging would be interesting, at least for me. as i should really be reading more of this stuff anyway.
in any event. even if this stuff one day makes it on to its own blog or lj or vox or whatever, i read this interesting article and thought someone here might enjoy it:
How to Make Sure Children Are Scientifically Literate by Lawrence M. Krauss
I have recently been criticized by some for strenuously objecting in print to what I believe are scientifically inappropriate attempts by some scientists to discredit the religious faith of others. However, the age of the earth, and the universe, is no more a matter of religious faith than is the question of whether or not the earth is flat.
It is a matter of overwhelming scientific evidence. To maintain a belief in a 6,000-year-old earth requires a denial of essentially all the results of modern physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology and geology. It is to imply that airplanes and automobiles work by divine magic, rather than by empirically testable laws.
Dr. Abrams has no choice but to separate his views from what is taught in science classes, because what he says he believes is inconsistent with the most fundamental facts the Kansas schools teach children.
amen to that, mr. krauss.
i genuinely respect, as i also believe mr. krauss does, the differing religious views held by members of the american public. i enjoy religious discussion on lots of different topics, including those of interest to many scientists -- the origins of the universe being an excellent case in point. i believe -- not that it's truly of any relevance -- in God, but i also believe in intellectual rigor. i am made genuinely nervous by the idea of a God who would ask me -- nay, expect me -- to have faith in those things which science can easily disprove.
perhaps it is seen as some sort of truer faith to continue to believe something regardless of how much evidence to the contrary is presented. i don't honestly know. i do know that in science continuing to hold to a belief in the face of a huge body of conflicting data is considered, well, unscientific. this is not to say that scientific theory doesn't change regularly, that our understanding of the world doesn't shift on a fairly constant basis. of course it does. but. one cannot reject evidence without a very good reason to do so, or a very good explanation for how said evidence actually supports their conflicting theory.
none of this, of course, is new ground or even the point of mr. krauss's essay. the point, rather, is that differing religious beliefs are well and good, and that anybody in america can feel free to believe whatever they want to in their personal lives. the problem comes when we get to the issue of education. how can we appoint those who adamantly and vocally hold views that are unscientific to be the heads of our secular school boards? it's excellent and important that we continue to recognize the unscientific nature of the creationist argument and that we continue to oppose its teaching in public schools. but we mustn't forget that strict creationism is not the only way in which unscience makes its way into our classrooms, and neither is religion -- pure ignorance may be the most insidious unscience of all. until we insist that our science teachers and our science curricula espouse and reflect the best data and theory science has to offer, we do our children a disservice.
no wonder so much of america cannot understand the implications of, say, global warming, or write al gore off as a liberal nutjob. their science education, well, sucked. we can present as much evidence as we want, as many graphs and charts and statistics, but in the end, we're talking to a populace that lacks the essential analytical tools necessary to understand what we're even talking about. and until they get that, it's all going to sound like political rhetoric to them.
and maybe that's our fault.
in any event. even if this stuff one day makes it on to its own blog or lj or vox or whatever, i read this interesting article and thought someone here might enjoy it:
How to Make Sure Children Are Scientifically Literate by Lawrence M. Krauss
I have recently been criticized by some for strenuously objecting in print to what I believe are scientifically inappropriate attempts by some scientists to discredit the religious faith of others. However, the age of the earth, and the universe, is no more a matter of religious faith than is the question of whether or not the earth is flat.
It is a matter of overwhelming scientific evidence. To maintain a belief in a 6,000-year-old earth requires a denial of essentially all the results of modern physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology and geology. It is to imply that airplanes and automobiles work by divine magic, rather than by empirically testable laws.
Dr. Abrams has no choice but to separate his views from what is taught in science classes, because what he says he believes is inconsistent with the most fundamental facts the Kansas schools teach children.
amen to that, mr. krauss.
i genuinely respect, as i also believe mr. krauss does, the differing religious views held by members of the american public. i enjoy religious discussion on lots of different topics, including those of interest to many scientists -- the origins of the universe being an excellent case in point. i believe -- not that it's truly of any relevance -- in God, but i also believe in intellectual rigor. i am made genuinely nervous by the idea of a God who would ask me -- nay, expect me -- to have faith in those things which science can easily disprove.
perhaps it is seen as some sort of truer faith to continue to believe something regardless of how much evidence to the contrary is presented. i don't honestly know. i do know that in science continuing to hold to a belief in the face of a huge body of conflicting data is considered, well, unscientific. this is not to say that scientific theory doesn't change regularly, that our understanding of the world doesn't shift on a fairly constant basis. of course it does. but. one cannot reject evidence without a very good reason to do so, or a very good explanation for how said evidence actually supports their conflicting theory.
none of this, of course, is new ground or even the point of mr. krauss's essay. the point, rather, is that differing religious beliefs are well and good, and that anybody in america can feel free to believe whatever they want to in their personal lives. the problem comes when we get to the issue of education. how can we appoint those who adamantly and vocally hold views that are unscientific to be the heads of our secular school boards? it's excellent and important that we continue to recognize the unscientific nature of the creationist argument and that we continue to oppose its teaching in public schools. but we mustn't forget that strict creationism is not the only way in which unscience makes its way into our classrooms, and neither is religion -- pure ignorance may be the most insidious unscience of all. until we insist that our science teachers and our science curricula espouse and reflect the best data and theory science has to offer, we do our children a disservice.
no wonder so much of america cannot understand the implications of, say, global warming, or write al gore off as a liberal nutjob. their science education, well, sucked. we can present as much evidence as we want, as many graphs and charts and statistics, but in the end, we're talking to a populace that lacks the essential analytical tools necessary to understand what we're even talking about. and until they get that, it's all going to sound like political rhetoric to them.
and maybe that's our fault.