What would you call religious education you are advocating emulating?
I'm pointing out, that scientists need to learn to talk to people in a way they can understand.
If you go into a hip-hop club, how likely is your country music group to receive a positive response?
I'm not talking about conversion. I'm talking about conversation. I know that's a difference of only 2 letters, but it's a huge difference. Do you understand that difference?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are arguing we should learn how religion indoctrinates people and use those techniques to further science education. I am arguing indoctrination techniques are anathema to science education.
Please quote me where I said we should indoctrinate.
We're both saying "teach them".
You're pointing out why they aren't listening.
I'm pointing out ways to try and get them to listen.
Actually, you haven't mentioned a single way to get them to listen. That's what we're waiting for! An example of what science education does wrong, that religion does right, that science can borrow from religion, which won't subvert science's goals of fostering healthy doubt. Please give us this example!
Until then all we hear is "religion is good at communicating, science should learn to communicate like religion" and, naturally, we think indoctrination.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thing is, what I said is still true. I have yet to meet an atheist that wants to outlaw religion. I have had the misfortune to meet far too many christians that want to outlaw any religion that is not THEIR version of christianity. I guess you guys couldn't be bothered to read my posts after that.
I've lived on both coasts and just about everywhere in between, and it's the same no matter where I've lived. I left christianity for a reason.
Well, if you're coming to Paizocon, let's have a beer and then you can say you know at least one Christian who believes very strongly in freedom of religion, or the lack thereof, as you see fit.
|
|
If you go into a hip-hop club, how likely is your country music group to receive a positive response?
I'm not talking about conversion. I'm talking about conversation. I know that's a difference of only 2 letters, but it's a huge difference. Do you understand that difference?
If you give a sermon, it isn't a lesson. Do you understand the difference?
You are arguing we should learn how religion indoctrinates people and use those techniques to further science education. I am arguing indoctrination techniques are anathema to science education.
Please quote me where I said we should indoctrinate.
We're both saying "teach them".
You're pointing out why they aren't listening.
I'm pointing out ways to try and get them to listen.
Actually, you haven't mentioned a single way to get them to listen. That's what we're waiting for! An example of what science education does wrong, that religion does right, that science can borrow from religion, which won't subvert science's goals of fostering healthy doubt. Please give us this example!
Until then all we hear is "religion is good at communicating, science should learn to communicate like religion" and, naturally, we think indoctrination.
Which of the 15+ pieces of information that I've posted have you seriously considered?
And again, you guys keep accusing me of making a strawman argument, yet you turn around and do the exact same thing everything you say I'm claiming indoctrination. Can you prove where I've advocated indoctrination? It should be easy if you're not making a strawman argument.
Reposting
More information on scientists trying to communicate batter
Communicators can use all the same methods of entertainment and persuasion as in other professions, including humor, story telling, and metaphors. Scientists are sometimes even trained in some of the techniques used by actors.A podcast from a PhD marine biologist about better communication
Radiolab episode about the importance of talking about science
These are scientists who are saying that metaphor is a powerful tool in the communication tool bag when communicating with non-scientists.
This book talks about the universality of religious metaphor throughout all known human culture, including cultures that arose independent, or at least extremely separate, from each other.
If you guys are going to be claiming to defend science, why aren't you guys using science to knock down my ideas. Instead, all I'm getting back is opinions and knee-jerk reactions.
How would Aristotle's Unmoved Mover or Uncreated Creator fit into this schema?
How would Aristotle's Unmoved Mover or Uncreated Creator fit into this schema?
Someone could lever him in with a big enough shoehorn and a place to lever it i suppose.
|
|
You are getting push back because you aren't saying what you want to say and how you want to say it.
Religious metaphor isn't science. Science isn't metaphor. Speaking of Aristotle, metaphor is part of why Aristotle was wrong about just about everything.
You actually have to test things.
I am very familiar with shared mythology. It is very interesting.
It is very nearly the antithesis of teaching someone personal critical thinking skills to teach in shared metaphor.
It is very nearly the antithesis of teaching someone personal critical thinking skills to teach in shared metaphor.
How? Don't tell, show.
I am saying what I want. I want better communication from scientists.
Until then all we hear is "religion is good at communicating, science should learn to communicate like religion" and, naturally, we think indoctrination.
Just want to point this out... this is not scientific thinking. This is a pre-existing prejudice. I am actively supplying data. You are responding with your opinion.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which of the 15+ pieces of information that I've posted have you seriously considered?And again, you guys keep accusing me of making a strawman argument, yet you turn around and do the exact same thing everything you say I'm claiming indoctrination. Can you prove where I've advocated indoctrination? It should be easy if you're not making a strawman argument.
I don't think you're even reading posts on this thread anymore, man.
Me: Let's say I agree with you that science needs to change its narrative to reach more people. How, specifically, do we do that without diluting the science or promoting it as a religion.You: OMG I already posted people saying that we need to teach it differently!
I'm not disagreeing. I'm asking for a SPECIFIC proposition as to how science needs to change its didactic method. Saying something vague about metaphors doesn't help, especially since science already does that (Neil DeGrasse Tyson's Stardust for example).
I also didn't claim you said indoctrination. Seriously. Read my f&+!ing post just once. I'm trying to be on your side. But if you don't offer examples of HOW science needs to change (not just experts that say THAT it needs to change) it still sounds like you're advocating indoctrination. I'm CERTAIN you don't mean that, so I'm asking you to: explain in specific detail a didactic method that you think science should adopt, how it is taken solely from religion (as opposed to educational psychology), and how, once science's teaching method is altered, the core of doubt is still intact.
Until then all we hear is "religion is good at communicating, science should learn to communicate like religion" and, naturally, we think indoctrination.Just want to point this out... this is not scientific thinking. This is a pre-existing prejudice. I am actively supplying data. You are responding with your opinion.
WTF?
What data? You have people saying science needs to communicate better. That mythology and metaphor are powerful teaching mechanisms. We are ALL AGREEING. YOU are saying that using applying those teaching mechanisms to a subject that is inherently non-metaphorical and necessitates critical thought rather than group-think will NOT affect the actual information transmitted.
And then attempting to shift the burden of proof.
I want to see what you have, but you're not showing anything, you just keep asserting the same thing over and over.
P.S.-Joseph Campbell kinda doesn't get it when it comes to religion so he's not the best authority to choose.
YOU are saying that using applying those teaching mechanisms to a subject that is inherently non-metaphorical and necessitates critical thought rather than group-think will NOT affect the actual information transmitted.
The brain thinks in metaphors.
Hearing a metaphor activates sensory regions of the brain.
How Galileo used metaphors to do science.
Human beings are inherently metaphorical. If you want widespread education and acceptance, we need to teach in a way that is widely understood.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Perhaps we can teach the horse the value of proper hydration though. (In this case, the horse is a metaphor for people and water is a metaphor for science)
P.S.-Joseph Campbell kinda doesn't get it when it comes to religion so he's not the best authority to choose.
Actually I think he gets it quite well. I would agree that he gets hung up on Jungian and Freudian psychoanalysis and so his work suffers. At the same time, I think quite a few of his findings and where his probing leads has significant value. His work will eventually be surpassed and found to be flawed, but the same thing can be said of Isaac Newton too.
YOU are saying that using applying those teaching mechanisms to a subject that is inherently non-metaphorical and necessitates critical thought rather than group-think will NOT affect the actual information transmitted.
The brain thinks in metaphors.
Hearing a metaphor activates sensory regions of the brain.
How Galileo used metaphors to do science.
Human beings are inherently metaphorical. If you want widespread education and acceptance, we need to teach in a way that is widely understood.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Perhaps we can teach the horse the value of proper hydration though. (In this case, the horse is a metaphor for people and water is a metaphor for science)
So what you're saying is you have absolutely no idea how to implement your ideas. I've already agreed with you that people learn metaphorically, so continuing to post links like those gets us nowhere.
I would disagree that religion inherently teaches through metaphor. Some do. Some specific stories might arguably be metaphor. It matters whether the practitioners believe it to be metaphor, however, and when we're talking about Christianity I think that's very much not the case.
I would also disagree that this is something we have to "learn from religion" rather than learning from educational psychologists who might have verifiable data on the subject.
Give me an example of a science lesson or classroom that teaches in the way you think it should be taught. Draw up a lesson plan that teaches using metaphors but doesn't subvert the precision and method of science. Or perhaps you think science ought not be taught in classrooms, or a science class, but taught as part of a unified curriculum? Or perhaps not in school but by parents? I really have no idea of what EXACTLY you're suggesting. Not more examples of people that vaguely agree that "things have got to change". That is self-evident.
As for Joseph Campbell, pretty much the basis of his whole work is "hey look, all mythologies are basically the same" which is really unfair to the RADICALLY different mythos out there, as well as how they developed and what they mean to the people who tell those stories. He's not an anthropologist. For example, the hero myth which he ascribes as being universal, in many mythologies the story is not in fact about the hero or heroism but simply a focus in teaching other lessons. He lumps them together, despite dissimilarities, because he has sort of already decided that they're a "hero myth".
In other words, while people are largely the same everywhere, the specific environments in which they live are incredibly varied. It's the people's interaction with their environment that creates religion (and culture, and society) in the first place. He equates sort of modular portions of mythos that are meant to be experienced holistically. Or, vice versa (as with Hindu), assuming a designed whole where it is a patchwork of beliefs. I think this does a disservice to the culture that created it.
So what you're saying is you have absolutely no idea how to implement your ideas. I've already agreed with you that people learn metaphorically, so continuing to post links like those gets us nowhere.
Yup, I am not an expert in education or oratory. So there are definitely limits to what I, a random person on the internet, can tell you about the subject.
I would disagree that religion inherently teaches through metaphor. Some do. Some specific stories might arguably be metaphor. It matters whether the practitioners believe it to be metaphor, however, and when we're talking about Christianity I think that's very much not the case.
So you're saying that a metaphor is no longer a metaphor once someone believes it to be a fact. To me, that sounds very similar to saying that because Christians don't believe in evolution, that it isn't true. You're arguing for a relativistic view of reality.
I would also disagree that this is something we have to "learn from religion" rather than learning from educational psychologists who might have verifiable data on the subject.
I am suggesting that educational psychologist could study religion and learn something.
Give me an example of a science lesson or classroom that teaches in the way you think it should be taught. Draw up a lesson plan that teaches using metaphors but doesn't subvert the precision and method of science. Or perhaps you think science ought not be taught in classrooms, or a science class, but taught as part of a unified curriculum? Or...
What I want to see change is the language that experts use when explaining science. A good (but often misunderstood and poorly represented) metaphor is Schrödinger's cat. It is much easier for the layman to even start to grasp than writing down /\X * /\P ≥ h / (4 * pi) on a piece of paper for him.
The number of people who accept that human beings evolved from an earlier species has dropped, from 45% in 1985 to 40% in 2005 in the US.
The religious right is a problem. We can't 'fix' them though, we can only change ourselves. Science is compelling. People don't want family members dying from cancer. Conservatives are painting stem cell research as killing babies. I'm sure you and I will agree that is patently false. Unfortunately the response is too often filled with technical jargon that glazes the listeners eyes over, so the true information doesn't sink in.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But what I am objecting to is your assumption that communicating in metaphor is going to achieve the goal of teaching people to think for themselves, when thinking in metaphor is functionally the group think we are trying to overcome through science.
It took thousands of years for man to come to the now obvious conclusions that we should test things to see if they are true.
We don't need everyone to understand everything. We need everyone to try to overcome the metaphoric and herd instinct limitations that made it take so long to realize something so basic and obvious as the scientific method.
We can't out jargon the ignorant. They can make stuff up and we can't. On the other hand, we can convince people the way to approach questions is to ask questions.
Religion is all about faith and deference. Metaphorical thought is about finding commonality, not truth.
We need to challenge people to find the answers for themselves, not teach them that we are right or wrong. People glaze over because they want simple answers from authority, because they haven't been taught to think for themselves.
It isn't that they don't know, it is that they have been taught not to try to know. Communicating more clearly isn't going to change the message, and the message isn't going to be able to compete with the fictional narrative. The only way to compete with the narrative is to teach people to look stuff up for themselves, because the current "two expert" approach makes the sides seem equal to anyone that is too lazy to look it up themselves, and the side willing to lie will always be able to make the cleaner narrative.
Karl Rove is an Atheist and Ed Gillespie is gay. They are possibly the two most effective propagandists on the right, because they don't care about truth as much as they care about outcomes. They epitomize the values the voters they attract hate, but they don't care because what they are selling isn't what is actually for sale.
When one side will lie unchallenged, the only way truth wins is if people are taught to question and look for themselves.
They are using the same tools you posted, with the advantage of not having to be honest.
If we try to compete on that playing field, it is like math nerds challenging the jocks to a game of football.
But what I am objecting to is your assumption that communicating in metaphor is going to achieve the goal of teaching people to think for themselves, when thinking in metaphor is functionally the group think we are trying to overcome through science.
It took thousands of years for man to come to the now obvious conclusions that we should test things to see if they are true.
We don't need everyone to understand everything. We need everyone to try to overcome the metaphoric and herd instinct limitations that made it take so long to realize something so basic and obvious as the scientific method.
We can't out jargon the ignorant. They can make stuff up and we can't. On the other hand, we can convince people the way to approach questions is to ask questions.
Religion is all about faith and deference. Metaphorical thought is about finding commonality, not truth.
We need to challenge people to find the answers for themselves, not teach them that we are right or wrong. People glaze over because they want simple answers from authority, because they haven't been taught to think for themselves.
It isn't that they don't know, it is that they have been taught not to try to know. Communicating more clearly isn't going to change the message, and the message isn't going to be able to compete with the fictional narrative. The only way to compete with the narrative is to teach people to look stuff up for themselves, because the current "two expert" approach makes the sides seem equal to anyone that is too lazy to look it up themselves, and the side willing to lie will always be able to make the cleaner narrative.
Karl Rove is an Atheist and Ed Gillespie is gay. They are possibly the two most effective propagandists on the right, because they don't care about truth as much as they care about outcomes. They epitomize the values the voters they attract hate, but they don't care because what they are selling isn't what is actually for sale.
When one side will lie unchallenged, the only way truth wins is if people are taught to question and look for themselves.
They are using the same tools you posted, with the advantage of not having to be honest.
If we try to compete on that playing field, it is like math nerds challenging the jocks to a game of football.
I find it amusing that you rail against metaphors, but you used at least 4 of them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you're saying that a metaphor is no longer a metaphor once someone believes it to be a fact. To me, that sounds very similar to saying that because Christians don't believe in evolution, that it isn't true. You're arguing for a relativistic view of reality.
Actually I think that it's YOU who is arguing for a relativistic view of reality. You're saying that something is objectively (even empirically) a metaphor because some, or even YOU, see it as such. Then anything can be a metaphor. Me saying "man lunch was good" could be interpreted as "lunch is representative for satiation of the hunger in all of us, and saying it is good is a commentary that we all hunger, perhaps for knowledge." But it certainly isn't meant that way, and anyone (except apparently YOU) would not interpret it as such. You calling my statement a metaphor doesn't make it so either, IT.
I don't think anyone thinks "Thou shalt not kill" is a metaphor. It's a command in plain speech. Something like David killing Goliath could easily be seen as a metaphor, and perhaps it was even meant as such by the writers (considering the lack of evidence of a historical David) but considering the vast majority of religious adherents to abrahamic religions who consider this story to be historical, rather than allegorical or metaphorical, what you're saying doesn't follow.
Look, putting aside some objective basis of calling something metaphorical or not, can we at least agree that if we're going to say that metaphors aid in the transmission of information, both the transmitter and the transmittee have to understand it as such? People have to be on the right wavelength for the desire information to be transmitted and received. If I'm telling a fable to transmit a moral (David and Goliath) and my audience gets something different out of it (let's kill all the tall people!) then hasn't my didactic method failed?
As for other stuff, I appreciate you're not an expert, but you can't say "X will work" and not give an example of X. The example of Shroedinger's Cat is a good one to show what you're talking about, but seeing as it is at once the most repeated and most misunderstood anecdotes in modern science, I would use it as evidence that science transmitted through fables loses both its precision and its purpose. Which is my entire point.
Again, I don't disagree that science needs to be taught differently, but let's have some brainstorming rather than bickering, eh?
Look, putting aside some objective basis of calling something metaphorical or not, can we at least agree that if we're going to say that metaphors aid in the transmission of information, both the transmitter and the transmittee have to understand it as such? People have to be on the right wavelength for the desire information to be transmitted and received. If I'm telling a fable to transmit a moral (David and Goliath) and my audience gets something different out of it (let's kill all the tall people!) then hasn't my didactic method failed?
I would agree. I also think that this is a major reason for the failure of religion is because that context is so old and gone, combined with a twisting of modern rationality, it becomes assumed that the value of the story is it's essence as fact, not as fable with something to teach. I've even said as much several pages ago.
The example of Shroedinger's Cat is a good one to show what you're talking about, but seeing as it is at once the most repeated and most misunderstood anecdotes in modern science, I would use it as evidence that science transmitted through fables loses both its precision and its purpose. Which is my entire point.
Twisting and misunderstanding information can happen in any format. It also happens with statistics, but I doubt we're going to start advocating the removal of statistics from science. Think Schroedinger's Cat is a good example of why we need to be careful with metaphors, but that care should include follow up education and training. It's also care that should be taken with all information.
You'll have to pardon me, but now your argument seems to be "it has always failed before (religion/metaphors) and the best example I can come up with in regard to science (Shroedinger's Cat) is also a failure, but we should change completely our way of teaching science to match this paradigm." Wut?
So I think the thing is that metaphors/allegory/fables is good for putting the relationships science describes into context. I'm just saying the first day I teach a kid about quantum physics and he goes home and tells his parents about the magical kitty named Quantum that lives in a box, I'm gonna blow my g+**!#n brains out.
I know it sounds arrogant, but I think I'd rather people know nothing than think they know something based on a fable but really be ignorant.
Sorry I can't help you make the connection.
It does sound arrogant. I doubt that method is going to work well for increasing scientific funding.
|
|
Sorry I can't help you make the connection.
It does sound arrogant. I doubt that method is going to work well for increasing scientific funding.
It doesn't just sound arrogant.
Put the goalposts back where you found them, funding was not your point, education was.
If you want to argue we need to figure out how to better convince people to fund science, fine.
You were looking to religion for better ways to education people about science, and our fundamental issue with that was that religious teaching, by it's very nature, isn't about questioning but about following.
People generally agree that science is good. Sure fundie outliers exist, but for the most part people like science.
But when "fake" science appears on things like global warming, teaching people to "like" science isn't helpful since everyone is claiming to be "science".
What we need to teach is critical thinking. Science education isn't poorly marketed, it's poorly taught.
Just want to point out, you used another major metaphor.
Understanding is directly linked to education. Funding is linked to understanding. People are less likely to fund things they have no understanding of. They're even less likely to fund things they think are bad, like stemcell research, because certain groups have convinced them that this is directly linked to killing babies.
You were looking to religion for better ways to education people about science, and our fundamental issue with that was that religious teaching, by it's very nature, isn't about questioning but about following.
This is a claim. You haven't presented any evidence of this claim yet. You've talked about it lots, but you haven't actually shown me anything yet.
I've shown you lots of things.
|
|
Just want to point out, you used another major metaphor.
Understanding is directly linked to education. Funding is linked to understanding. People are less likely to fund things they have no understanding of. They're even less likely to fund things they think are bad, like stemcell research, because certain groups have convinced them that this is directly linked to killing babies.
You were looking to religion for better ways to education people about science, and our fundamental issue with that was that religious teaching, by it's very nature, isn't about questioning but about following.This is a claim. You haven't presented any evidence of this claim yet. You've talked about it lots, but you haven't actually shown me anything yet.
I've shown you lots of things.
Point it out all you like. Metaphors are great for debate and discussion. That is what is going on in this forum. This isn't a classroom, I'm not your teacher.
What you have presented is a number of examples of how to influence peoples opinions. That isn't the same as teaching. That is what you and I are doing right now.
That is why we use metaphors.
How can something be good enough for a debate/discussion, but it isn't good enough for teaching?
Shouldn't teaching that includes critical thinking be open to debate/discussion?
You're creating a double standard.
We don't need everyone to understand everything. We need everyone to try to overcome the metaphoric and herd instinct limitations that made it take so long to realize something so basic and obvious as the scientific method.
You claimed that metaphor is part of the "herd" instinct (which is a metaphor), you also mentioned how it is part of groupthink (which when using the term is one word, not two).
Explain to me how something that increases groupthink is good for debate/discussion. You made the claim, now back it up.
|
|
How can something be good enough for a debate/discussion, but it isn't good enough for teaching?
Shouldn't teaching that includes critical thinking be open to debate/discussion?
You're creating a double standard.
Debating and discussing aren't teaching. You don't debate and discuss someone into an understanding of algebra.
I was a history major personally, we did a lot of debating and discussing as a history major. But only after we actually researched to find out information for the debates and discussions.
(This is also why we made fun of sociology majors, but that is a whole thing :)...)
If you didn't know the material through independent study, you were called out by people who did as your ignorance was exposed in the discussion. The discussion was the test, not the lesson. The lesson was what you researched to prepare yourself to not look like a fool.
Giving someone a metaphor to kind of vaguely understand that someone else figured something out isn't the same as teaching science or scientific thinking. That approach is why people think that science isn't sure about Global Warming.
Right now you and I are debating if we should look to religion for ways to convey information to people. My position is that conveying information isn't the problem, lack of critical thinking is the problem.
Religion, almost by definition, doesn't teach people to question what they are told or to think critically.
Getting someone to understand information isn't the issue. Getting people to differentiate between truth and BS is the issue. People believe science works, they just can't tell what is science and what is crap. And since crap can just make stuff up, crap will always sound better to the untrained ear.
Looking to the Church for ways to teach people to see through BS is like going to the brothel to buy a chastity belt.
Again, you're making more claims. You aren't supporting your claims though. You're talking about your claims, but you aren't showing evidence of them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How can something be good enough for a debate/discussion, but it isn't good enough for teaching?
Shouldn't teaching that includes critical thinking be open to debate/discussion?
You're creating a double standard.
Since I have the training in pedagogy I'll make one shallow dip back into the rabbit hole. Here's how something can be good enough for critical discourse and not be good for education: Cognitive development.
For most of the years kids are in school, they don't have the necessary capabilities developed in their brains for them to really handle advanced stuff like a critical discussion. It might be possible to boil things down and with enough patience, repetition, and really dedicated teachers, parents, and students, to bootstrap some kids up there in limited ways. But that time is coming out of time to teach them all kinds of things that are either much more suited to their capabilities at the time (basic literacy, spelling motor skills, vocabulary building, arithmetic, generally things you either have to or are going to end up learning by rote anyway) and/or out of the time teaching them things that are important precursors to having your critical apparatus up and running, which overlap with the previous but also include things like textual interpretation as you get further on.
In the part you quoted from me, I used the term "critical thinking". What you're talking about doesn't sound like "critical thinking".
So, how can something that is good enough for a debate/discussion, not be good enough for use in teaching critical thinking? Because that is what he claimed.
We need to challenge people to find the answers for themselves, not teach them that we are right or wrong. People glaze over because they want simple answers from authority, because they haven't been taught to think for themselves.
He's claiming metaphor is antithetical to teaching critical thinking. I find it ironic that he's using it regularly in his attempt to prove his point. He keeps using it though, because metaphor is an extremely powerful way to convey ones point.
A picture is worth a thousand words and metaphors are the language equivalent of pictures.
I'm also amused that everyone opposing me isn't citing sources that back them up. Not because this is an "appeal to authority", but the people who claim to be defending science, aren't using it to defend themselves.
I got a slight case of TL;DR here, but I think this is a weird discussion overall. What we need to do is teach people to think for themselves. To get them to do that, to even want to learn that, it's not a bad idea to show them the glitzy parts of science. What, you expect 9-year-olds to start reading Nature and Cell, and debating it? Truth is, science isn't a very glitzy field, especially compared to those narrative-peddling fields it competes with: Religion, marketing, entertainment... We need rockets, Mars trips, asteroid mining, every ounce of appeal we can get. Once people think there may be something to it, they will learn.
Critical thinking is difficult, and it's hard. It's difficult, because even doing so takes a while to learn. It's not the same as automatically discounting things, it's learning to find what might be relevant. Critical thinking is hard, because you will find today that so many and so powerful forces want to limit your critical thinking. It's not an appealing way to see the world for everyone. It brings sacrifices many don't want to make.
Not that science as an institution is all that hot on scientific method today, either. There are a multitude of ethics councils that govern the direction scientific inquiry will take, companies that pressure universities on the same, politicians who start international groups that promote data that supports specific views, and so on. It is a huge, multifaceted problem.
I got a slight case of TL;DR here, but I think this is a weird discussion overall. What we need to do is teach people to think for themselves. To get them to do that, to even want to learn that, it's not a bad idea to show them the glitzy parts of science. What, you expect 9-year-olds to start reading Nature and Cell, and debating it? Truth is, science isn't a very glitzy field, especially compared to those narrative-peddling fields it competes with: Religion, marketing, entertainment... We need rockets, Mars trips, asteroid mining, every ounce of appeal we can get. Once people think there may be something to it, they will learn.
That's the gist of Robert Krulwich's commencement speech at CalTech. It's a 30-min radio lab episode if you're interested.
I personally think there's something to be gained by studying religion. The factual part of all religion is that it's human beings interacting with one another. Studying how they do that gives us access to an enormous potential data set. Not all of it will be useful and I'm not advocating an exact copy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm also amused that everyone opposing me isn't citing sources that back them up. Not because this is an "appeal to authority", but the people who claim to be defending science, aren't using it to defend themselves.
Because there's nothing to cite. At least for me. I agree with you in principle, I am STILL waiting for even a simple example of how exactly we apply this to science education in a way we haven't already.
I don't know if its kids that suck at critical thinking or simply most humans.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if its kids that suck at critical thinking or simply most humans.
Both? Thinking critically itself needs to be taught, and the earlier the better. Education needs to emphasize learning the right questions to ask rather than knowing the right answers. I think too many people float by with rote memorization, which evaporates the moment they graduate.
I don't know if its kids that suck at critical thinking or simply most humans.Both? Thinking critically itself needs to be taught, and the earlier the better. Education needs to emphasize learning the right questions to ask rather than knowing the right answers. I think too many people float by with rote memorization, which evaporates the moment they graduate.
It's both. Human psychology does not predispose us to rationality.
Here's a fun task: Devise an assessment of rationality that doesn't get the parents to appear outside your house with torches and pitchforks.
Both? Thinking critically itself needs to be taught, and the earlier the better.
Can it be taught? The people that have allegedly been taught to think well are usually the first example of how not to think.
I don't know if its kids that suck at critical thinking or simply most humans.Both? Thinking critically itself needs to be taught, and the earlier the better. Education needs to emphasize learning the right questions to ask rather than knowing the right answers. I think too many people float by with rote memorization, which evaporates the moment they graduate.It's both. Human psychology does not predispose us to rationality.
Here's a fun task: Devise an assessment of rationality that doesn't get the parents to appear outside your house with torches and pitchforks.
Step 1: buy every pitchfork in town
Step 2: teach rational thinking
Step 3: prepare fire extinguishers because you can't stop the home made torch industry.
Done!
Both? Thinking critically itself needs to be taught, and the earlier the better.Can it be taught? The people that have allegedly been taught to think well are usually the first example of how not to think.
To a degree. I mean there will always be dumb and/or gullible people. But I think people of average intelligence can at least be shown how to distinguish a reliable source on a subject from a biased one, and to follow a basic argument. I just don't think it's generally taught. Reasoning I mean.
I had a college level reason in communication course last semester (required QR1) and some people just couldn't get it. The instructor was pretty boggled, as was I. It's just not something that is valued in our culture outside of college. Most people just sort of trudge through life thinking anyone who disagrees with them is either an idiot or that "it's just their opinion" without any sense of self-examination.
It is largely intuitive to me, but my skills have been honed by the internet flame wars. Not that I think I put my best face forward on these boards, I'm usually far too lazy to put forth a cogent argument.
Because there's nothing to cite. At least for me. I agree with you in principle, I am STILL waiting for even a simple example of how exactly we apply this to science education in a way we haven't already.
I'm also amused that everyone opposing me isn't citing sources that back them up. Not because this is an "appeal to authority", but the people who claim to be defending science, aren't using it to defend themselves.
This is a completely different stance than what has been claimed so far. Ciretose has been saying that I'm completely wrong and there's nothing to be gained.
To a degree. I mean there will always be dumb and/or gullible people. But I think people of average intelligence can at least be shown how to distinguish a reliable source on a subject from a biased one, and to follow a basic argument. I just don't think it's generally taught. Reasoning I mean.
Damned optimists...
It's just not something that is valued in our culture outside of college.
Given the vast number of professors who want you to put what they told you in class on the paper I have my doubts that its valued in college.
Most people just sort of trudge through life thinking anyone who disagrees with them is either an idiot or that "it's just their opinion" without any sense of self-examination. I think I put my best face forward on these boards, I'm usually far too lazy to put forth a cogent argument.
And not putting forth said cogent argument looks exactly like can't.
|
|
This is a completely different stance than what has been claimed so far. Ciretose has been saying that I'm completely wrong and there's nothing to be gained.Because there's nothing to cite. At least for me. I agree with you in principle, I am STILL waiting for even a simple example of how exactly we apply this to science education in a way we haven't already.
I'm also amused that everyone opposing me isn't citing sources that back them up. Not because this is an "appeal to authority", but the people who claim to be defending science, aren't using it to defend themselves.
As to how to educate people on how to think critically I would think religion is the absolute worst place to look, since it basically teaches you not to think critically, but to have faith.