Why do we want to teach our children science?

[BarryDesborough]

Why do we want to teach our children science?

Apart from the obvious, materialistic and mundane reasons, what might we hope to impart to our children, even if they never go into science and science-related careers?

We are all surrounded by people wanting us to believe what they are telling us. From the relatively trivial, such as the astrology pages and the claims of fringe medicine, through the clamour of the advertising industry and the appeals of politicians, right up to the ranting of the fanatic and the outright (one could almost say honest) fraud of the con man - at least the con artist is not interested in leaving us with permanent illusions. All these people, for their own motives, want to persuade us to believe what they have to say, sometimes in the belief that they are doing it for our own benefit. But we require the means of evaluating what they have to say for ourselves.

How then, are we to equip our children with the critical faculties required for this sort of evaluation? Good scholarship is a feature of all subjects when they are taught well, but science is the epitome of subjects in which the appeal to authority, "Take my word for it", has no final say. Neither is the final say granted to the armchair philosopher, the clever rhetorician, the appealer to emotion or the snake-oil salesman. Instead, we demand, "Show me!"

Unfortunately, it's not so simple in practice. No school student can test the entire contents of the science curriculum. We have to ensure that the scientific method, with its peer-review process and its principles of repeatability, falsifiability, parsimony and consilience has been applied to what is being taught. We have to be able to know that our scientists and science teachers are faithful to these methods. Only then are our teachers able to impart the heart of science - the attitude of "Show me!" Only then can our children be equipped to reflexively raise an eyebrow to claims such as, "This crystal energy will heal you", "You can trust me with your vote", and "This is the sure way to Paradise."

 

[jpcedotal]

There needs to be more of an effort in differentiating between "this is what a large group of scientist believe" and "scientific fact".

The law of gravity and the theory of evolution do not have the same scientific backing and proof, but teachers teach both as fact.

I am all for teaching science, but not worldviews hiding behind the mask of science.

 

[Strathos]

Actually gravity and evolution have basically as much scientific consensus as it is possible for a scientific theory to get.

 

[sfs]

There needs to be more of an effort in differentiating between "this is what a large group of scientist believe" and "scientific fact".

A reasonable cut-off is, "this is the consensus view of scientists in this field". Evolution easily meets that standard.

The law of gravity and the theory of evolution do not have the same scientific backing and proof, but teachers teach both as fact.

The only "law of gravity" is Newton's universal law of gravitation, which is unequivocally wrong. The existing theory (yes, theory) of gravitation is General Relativity, which is certainly wrong at the quantum level, and which has required a couple of large, unsatisfactory patches (dark matter and dark energy) to match data. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, will undoubtedly require continued tweaking, since biology is a very messy subject, but is as well-supported (as "factual") as any scientific model can be.

I am all for teaching science, but not worldviews hiding behind the mask of science.

I am all in favor of legitimate criticism of science, but not discredited religious views hiding behind the mask of intellectual inquiry.

 

[Split Rock]

There needs to be more of an effort in differentiating between "this is what a large group of scientist believe" and "scientific fact".

The law of gravity and the theory of evolution do not have the same scientific backing and proof, but teachers teach both as fact.

I am all for teaching science, but not worldviews hiding behind the mask of science.

Funny how you guys always harp about teaching scientific theories as "scientific fact," or "absolute truth." I for one do not recall a teacher EVER teaching me that ANY scientific theory was "fact" or "Truth." You just want your religious dogma taught as science, or real scientific theories that you don't happen to like watered down so they don't offend your delicately balanced faith.

 

[BarryDesborough]

There needs to be more of an effort in differentiating between "this is what a large group of scientist believe" and "scientific fact".

The law of gravity and the theory of evolution do not have the same scientific backing and proof, but teachers teach both as fact.

I am all for teaching science, but not worldviews hiding behind the mask of science.

When I was a schoolteacher, I taught my charges what the evidence was, what scientists thought were the best accounts of the evidence, and why. I trusted in the notion that unless they were helplessly indoctrinated already, they could and should evaluate it themselves. It's called "education".

Things fall. Life changes over time. In fact, gravity remains much more of a mystery than biological evolution.

 

[jpcedotal]

When I was a schoolteacher, I taught my charges what the evidence was, what scientists thought were the best accounts of the evidence, and why. I trusted in the notion that unless they were helplessly indoctrinated already, they could and should evaluate it themselves. It's called "education".

Things fall. Life changes over time. In fact, gravity remains much more of a mystery than biological evolution.

You swallowed the lie and then you regurgitate it to children who do not have the ability to understand that everything a teacher says may not be true or just a popular opinion.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

I concur. Science is a process, not a place to memorize information. Show them the steps, give them the tools, and then let them ask the questions to dig themselves out of a conundrum.

 

[sfs]

You swallowed the lie and then you regurgitate it to children who do not have the ability to understand that everything a teacher says may not be true or just a popular opinion.

You evidently consider yourself an expert in physics and biology. Might I ask what your level of expertise is?

 

[And-U-Say]

You swallowed the lie and then you regurgitate it to children who do not have the ability to understand that everything a teacher says may not be true or just a popular opinion.

Hold on there, Pilgrim. That's a mighty big claim you got there. How would we be able to tell if something is real or is a lie? What method would we use? It can't be how we feel about it. It has to be about the evidence. Evidence is the most powerful yardstick in existence to determine reality. And as we all know, "truth" is just a description of a given state's agreement with reality.

So what is your evidence there, partner? What evidence it there that Evolution is a lie? Such evidence would be very important and valuable. Please, let us know what this is.

 

[Loudmouth]

You swallowed the lie and then you regurgitate it to children who do not have the ability to understand that everything a teacher says may not be true or just a popular opinion.

And yet creationists who make these claims are never able to present any evidence showing that they are lies.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

There needs to be more of an effort in differentiating between "this is what a large group of scientist believe" and "scientific fact".

The law of gravity and the theory of evolution do not have the same scientific backing and proof, but teachers teach both as fact.

I am all for teaching science, but not worldviews hiding behind the mask of science.

I'm of the opposite opinion. It's the world view that's the important thing to teach in science, skepticism, rationity, the importance of testing one's claims against reality, collaboration/communication/review, the difference between journalism/rhetoric and scientific writing, what a real explanation is, etc.

Evolution is at least as well demonstrated as gravity and better understood.

 

[BarryDesborough]

You swallowed the lie and then you regurgitate it to children who do not have the ability to understand that everything a teacher says may not be true or just a popular opinion.

Crap.

Correction. Utter crap.

 

[Split Rock]

You swallowed the lie and then you regurgitate it to children who do not have the ability to understand that everything a teacher says may not be true or just a popular opinion.

The theory of evolution is not "just popular opinion." Nor are you apparently capable of demonstrating for us that it is a "lie."

You really have nothing to contribute to this (or any) discussion other than rhetoric.. do you? Same old jpcedotal....

 

[Loudmouth]

Why do we teach science? I am of many opinions on this one.

First, science is as much an accomplishment of humanity as any of the arts or any other grand discovery. The discovery of the atomic nucleus is as inspiring as the Mona Lisa or the discovery of the Americas by Columbus. We owe it to the heritage of humanity to teach students what we have discovered through hard work, blood, and tears. It is no different than having kids read Shakespeare in English class, or learn about the history of humankind that has shaped our modern world. Just think about the fact that we took flight for the first time in 1903, and then landed on the Moon just 66 years later. Just 66 years, a mere blink in the history of humankind. That's impressive, and worth celebrating.

The next reason is that we need a new generation of scientists. In school they learn to stand on the shoulders of giants. We need a new generation of giants. We need the next Hawking, the next Ernst Mayr, and the next Einstein. Science class should not just teach students, but inspire them to build on our knowledge.

Furthest down the list, but still important, is to give students an understanding of how science works, and why it is worth using public money to support. If we are going to use public tax money to support basic science research then I think it is our duty to at least teach our young generation of citizens what science is and what we have discovered with that public money.

 

[alongcameaschneider]

Young earth "Creation-science" (10,000 yrs max. -- dinosaur/human contemporaneity, etc.) must be presented along with "mainstream" (such as Darwinian) paradigm. If all specific terms, names, etc. are expunged from class procedures and books, there's no abrogation of "Separation". Legend presented is not religion preached.
What I've just written here (above) should catch someone's attention!!! And I hope I'll have stirred response, at first by way of a short retort to me via my email (apangie123@comcast.net). I'm rather at a loss as to how one goes about reciprocal exchanges on this (and other sites) where I post. And I may have been out of line (worse, beyond length) with some of the essays I've presented from my "Existential Series".
If to anyone it seems I've just proclaimed my premises, aloof from others' interests in and responses to, it's because I have no idea where to look to see any feedback which I should acknowledge, first with thanks even for excoriatory notice taken of what I've written -- and to which I should, then, respond as courtesy -- and discussion-post-site protocol. thanks

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You swallowed the lie and then you regurgitate it to children who do not have the ability to understand that everything a creationist says may not be true or just a minority opinion.

I think that's fair, don't you? That's one very good reason to teach science.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

I concur. Science is a process, not a place to memorize information. Show them the steps, give them the tools, and then let them ask the questions to dig themselves out of a conundrum.

But your basic every day conundrum will be ~ is this detox diet a waste of money? ~ Should I vaccinate my kids? ~ is this journalist giving credible information on climate change?
No one coming out of high school science can be expected to be able to rationally assess if the last 150 years of biology and 200 years of earth science and 400 years of astronomy and physics is all wrong. No one human even with PhDs in all of these areas could be expected to reconstruct these disciplines from first principles. Some stuff is taught as fact because it's passed a threshold where denial is simply perverse. Evolution, gravity, germ theory, optics, quantum field theory, plate tectonics, stellar fusion, geologic eras, electromagnetism, valence bonding etc have made the grade in this respect. They can be taught as fact with the confidence of massive amounts of consilient evidence despite there being much more, even fundamental stuff, to learn in each and every case. The level at which these things break down into competing hypotheses is well above that which is taught in high school.

At the high school level we should be confident in saying, these are some of the facts and theories you need to just learn and accept in order for any of the other stuff to make sense.

 

[jpcedotal]

It is not science, it is a worldview...a popular opinion...

I do not want Creationism taught in schools either btw. No, religion should be taught in school, unless it is taught as a relgion

 

[jpcedotal]

Crap.

Correction. Utter crap.

That's why evolution should stay out of public schools or at least make it an elective that parents must sign a permission slip in order for their child to be taught it.