Rooting out scientific misconceptions

[Kharak]

Scientific illiteracy regarding fundamental biology is the least of America's problems. As important as evolution is, there are other matters that are even more concerning bits of high octane nightmare fuel.

It's bad enough that anti-fluoridation vibes still exist (precious bodily fluids indeed), but now we have people who think that all, "mainstream medicine" is part of giant conspiracy and that vaccines are some sort of neurotoxin (I kid you not) and microwave ovens give you cancer. Never mind that they don't even understand what vaccines are, or that microwaves don't actually produce ionizing radiation. Though none of that is really important when we remember is that they are also voters who sincerely believe that they are right and actual, publishing professionals are components of some evil organization.

A website is simply not enough. There should be federally funded education stormtroopers rappelling down from attack helicopters and through classroom windows to correct areas in which ignorance is championed. Perhaps it is too late to safe those already indoctrinated, but think of the children!

 

[juvenissun]

I'd say the content itself (I essentially took the same math course 3 years in a row just following the standard progression from 7-9 grade) and how the teachers teach. Much of the work received in middle and high school is busy work and doesn't improve the level of understanding. Studies show that massive amounts of homework don't improve test scores compared to little-no homework.

Another big problem is how the school year is set up, we really need year-round schooling. Students loose so much progress during the summer, having shorter summers with longer spring and winter breaks (even without increasing the number of school days, although that can be improved too) will make our youth more competitive on the international circuit, which we are already behind and such is key to success in the post-modern world.

Thank you very much for the input, and for the interesting idea about the school calendar too.

About the homework, what kind of homework is good according to you?

And another one: Do you think a teacher with a Master degree will teach better? Do you think the school should hire more teachers with a Master degree?

 

[Naraoia]

It is OK. But I am not impressed. Those questions are only good for a pre-course survey. Even that, it does not help much to the teacher.

It doesn't help the teacher much if they know why the students don't get the material? That just doesn't follow. The site isn't meant to cure all of students' misunderstanding all by itself, anyway. It's meant to help teachers (and students, I assume) to find what the misconceptions are. Identifying the problem is the first step to solving it.

Most of those so-called misconceptions are simply the lack of small pieces of knowledge. Once the subject is learned, the misconception is gone.

But I'm sure you'd agree that if a teacher knows what small pieces are missing, it's easier for them to fill in the gaps.

An example of real misconception is: Creationists don't care about science. You simply cannot root this misconception out of many people even they have had Ph.D degree for a long time.

Is that meant to imply that the misconceptions the new site deals with aren't real?

As I said before, I like the concept (can't see the questions though), but to me the real answer is to better educate the teachers before they teach and make sure they stay up to par. The education system is so messed up on nearly every level, I'll gladly take any improvement available.

Well-educated teachers are certainly a no-brainer, but I think this kind of resource can be tremendously useful even if you have them. A teacher may know their stuff inside-out, but precisely because of that, they might be communicating on a completely different level from the students. Things that are self-evident to them, the kids may get confused about, and it's not always easy to put your finger on the reason.

It's a bit like the creationists who come here asking for evidence of macroevolution. Someone happily posts that list of observed speciation and declares them pwned. When the creationist replies that's not really macroevolution, they think the creationist is shifting the goalposts, when the two posters probably just had different ideas of "macroevolution" from the outset.

Scientific illiteracy regarding fundamental biology is the least of America's problems. As important as evolution is, there are other matters that are even more concerning bits of high octane nightmare fuel.

The site is not just about biology (one of the sample true/false questions on the SciAm blog happens to be geology, for example). We don't even know if evolution is addressed specifically (though I'd personally be surprised if it wasn't).

... and microwave ovens give you cancer.

Now that's a new one

A website is simply not enough. There should be federally funded education stormtroopers rappelling down from attack helicopters and through classroom windows to correct areas in which ignorance is championed. Perhaps it is too late to safe those already indoctrinated, but think of the children!

It may not be enough, but it's more than nothing.

 

[Matthew712]

Thank you very much for the input, and for the interesting idea about the school calendar too.

About the homework, what kind of homework is good according to you?

And another one: Do you think a teacher with a Master degree will teach better? Do you think the school should hire more teachers with a Master degree?

I'm no expert on homework, but obviously you would want homework that engages kids in the subject and re-enforces basic concepts and accurately assesses the kids progress and understanding. At least as a starting point I'd try to pound in the idea that lots of homework doesn't improve understanding or test scores - quality over quantity.

Just looking at my own experiences, I'd say that I have a better idea of what not to give kids than what to give them (I had to make soccer balls out of cardboard paper in middle and high school, do fill in blanks on handouts that were from out textbook verbatim but didn't have to demonstrate that we read or understood the material, in chemistry we had "Go" handouts, yes the game Go, to help us improve our chem mindset, etc).

I suppose one thing that I'd be for is more writing; i.e. having short essay questions for what you read (I had almost none of that K-12). I don't know if you're aware, but they've added an essay/writing section to the SAT because colleges were starting to complain that kids coming in don't know how to write.

I don't know that much about the masters degree thing. I know that there's a push for teachers with them, it would make teachers more knowledgeable I suppose. My 12 grade English teacher didn't have a masters yet and I thought she did a fine job teaching, OTOH my 11 grade English teacher was a retired lawyer and I thought he was the worst teacher I ever had. I guess I'd say that for high school a masters would be preferable but isn't required to be a good teacher. I'm also reminded of 9 grade biology, we had a student at the end of his 4 year teaching degree helping out for a few months and I thought he did an excellent job.

One other thing that would probably help is extending the school day and starting school later for middle and high school students. Not very popular, and extra curricular activities would have a fit, but I think it could work. I remember one poll showed that teachers give out lots of homework, in part, because they don't feel that they don't have enough time in the classroom to teach it all. So it would reduce the homework load and increase understanding, it would reduce something called "latchkey kids" (kids who are home alone after school) which can have negative effects. Studies show that teenagers who go to school an hour or two later than normal behave better, are more alert, and learn the material better and faster.

P.S. didn't mean for it to turn out this long, but sometimes I just start writing and I don't know when to stop.

 

[Kharak]

IThe site is not just about biology (one of the sample true/false questions on the SciAm blog happens to be geology, for example). We don't even know if evolution is addressed specifically (though I'd personally be surprised if it wasn't).

I hadn't had time to check it out in its entirety (between Dawn of War II and this), though the discussion might as well lead us to that conclusion.

Now that's a new one

That's actually one of the scarier ones, and I've found it has since eclipsed the older and equally incorrect belief that microwaves heat things from the inside out. It's often followed with the statement that, "microwaves mutate molecules and you should not use them" or, "bad microwaves are bad" (paraphrased). Though these are often the same people who say they eat all food rare or raw in the same paragraph.

It may not be enough, but it's more than nothing.

It depends on how people react. It may very well be like wearing a lead suit to protect against braking radiation in space. A brutally proactive approach should be pursued, and we definitely need to start working on those Carl Sagan, Issac Asimov and Gerard O'Neill clones before it's too late. Remember how popular Cosmos was in its day?

 

[juvenissun]

I'm no expert on homework, but obviously you would want homework that engages kids in the subject and re-enforces basic concepts and accurately assesses the kids progress and understanding. At least as a starting point I'd try to pound in the idea that lots of homework doesn't improve understanding or test scores - quality over quantity.

Just looking at my own experiences, I'd say that I have a better idea of what not to give kids than what to give them (I had to make soccer balls out of cardboard paper in middle and high school, do fill in blanks on handouts that were from out textbook verbatim but didn't have to demonstrate that we read or understood the material, in chemistry we had "Go" handouts, yes the game Go, to help us improve our chem mindset, etc).

I suppose one thing that I'd be for is more writing; i.e. having short essay questions for what you read (I had almost none of that K-12). I don't know if you're aware, but they've added an essay/writing section to the SAT because colleges were starting to complain that kids coming in don't know how to write.

I don't know that much about the masters degree thing. I know that there's a push for teachers with them, it would make teachers more knowledgeable I suppose. My 12 grade English teacher didn't have a masters yet and I thought she did a fine job teaching, OTOH my 11 grade English teacher was a retired lawyer and I thought he was the worst teacher I ever had. I guess I'd say that for high school a masters would be preferable but isn't required to be a good teacher. I'm also reminded of 9 grade biology, we had a student at the end of his 4 year teaching degree helping out for a few months and I thought he did an excellent job.

One other thing that would probably help is extending the school day and starting school later for middle and high school students. Not very popular, and extra curricular activities would have a fit, but I think it could work. I remember one poll showed that teachers give out lots of homework, in part, because they don't feel that they don't have enough time in the classroom to teach it all. So it would reduce the homework load and increase understanding, it would reduce something called "latchkey kids" (kids who are home alone after school) which can have negative effects. Studies show that teenagers who go to school an hour or two later than normal behave better, are more alert, and learn the material better and faster.

P.S. didn't mean for it to turn out this long, but sometimes I just start writing and I don't know when to stop.

It is normal. Once you are asked on things you know, you can certainly say a lot. That is the reason I asked you the questions. Grade school teaching/learning is too far from me to understand now. Yes, there is a big education department in my university. But I usually feel they are doing child-play projects, even at the graduate level. Well, I guess that is what they do. I might find a chance to tell them what you said.

Anyway, thanks a lot for your opinion. In this case, I do think the website of AAAS will help. Hope you will find it useful too.

 

[Matthew712]

Well-educated teachers are certainly a no-brainer, but I think this kind of resource can be tremendously useful even if you have them. A teacher may know their stuff inside-out, but precisely because of that, they might be communicating on a completely different level from the students. Things that are self-evident to them, the kids may get confused about, and it's not always easy to put your finger on the reason.

It's a bit like the creationists who come here asking for evidence of macroevolution. Someone happily posts that list of observed speciation and declares them pwned. When the creationist replies that's not really macroevolution, they think the creationist is shifting the goalposts, when the two posters probably just had different ideas of "macroevolution" from the outset.

I agree. Perhaps filling the teacher edition textbooks with common misconceptions will help eliminate some of them early on, if they don't already have something similar already.

 

[Naraoia]

Just looking at my own experiences, I'd say that I have a better idea of what not to give kids than what to give them (I had to make soccer balls out of cardboard paper in middle and high school, do fill in blanks on handouts that were from out textbook verbatim but didn't have to demonstrate that we read or understood the material, in chemistry we had "Go" handouts, yes the game Go, to help us improve our chem mindset, etc).

Chemistry homework should be playing Atomix. Though it'll probably teach you more about patience and perseverance than organic chemistry

I suppose one thing that I'd be for is more writing; i.e. having short essay questions for what you read (I had almost none of that K-12). I don't know if you're aware, but they've added an essay/writing section to the SAT because colleges were starting to complain that kids coming in don't know how to write.

That seems to be an international problem. Once we had this French student on her year abroad, and she confessed that she'd never had to write an essay before. In the final year of her degree.

That's actually one of the scarier ones, and I've found it has since eclipsed the older and equally incorrect belief that microwaves heat things from the inside out. It's often followed with the statement that, "microwaves mutate molecules and you should not use them" or, "bad microwaves are bad" (paraphrased). Though these are often the same people who say they eat all food rare or raw in the same paragraph.

Those rare or raw folks should try it with tapeworm-infected pork once. I hear it's an excellent weight-loss diet

It depends on how people react. It may very well be like wearing a lead suit to protect against braking radiation in space. A brutally proactive approach should be pursued, and we definitely need to start working on those Carl Sagan, Issac Asimov and Gerard O'Neill clones before it's too late. Remember how popular Cosmos was in its day?

I'm a bit too young to remember Cosmos in its day, but yeah, it's beautiful. I think at least the BBC still makes some excellent documentaries - Wonders of the Universe, The Story of Maths, this Everything and Nothing thing I just watched thanks to mzungu... (Though, how many people in the US watch that kind of stuff? I also saw The Elegant Universe fairly recently - award winning PBS documentary, whatever, and frankly, I thought it sounded like a bad commercial.)

 

[Kharak]

Those rare or raw folks should try it with tapeworm-infected pork once. I hear it's an excellent weight-loss diet

I'll recommend the unfiltered, unboiled pond water in lieu of tap water while we're at it! It's Dysentacular!

I'm a bit too young to remember Cosmos in its day, but yeah, it's beautiful. I think at least the BBC still makes some excellent documentaries - Wonders of the Universe, The Story of Maths, this Everything and Nothing thing I just watched thanks to mzungu... (Though, how many people in the US watch that kind of stuff?

The United States gets the Un-History Channel. I actually develop physical nausea while watching all but a handful of select programs from that and its International Un-History associate. Though the Discovery Channel and its spinoffs does in fact rebroadcast a lot BBC and Canadian programs (often without the British accents, too). The infamous How It's Made series, for instance, was made by those perfidious French Canadians.

The personal issue I have with most of these shows (regardless of their nationality or subject matter), is that they are not really that engaging. One of my favorite and actually rather accurate is Terry Jones' The Crusades (yes, that Terry Jones. It was not only funny, but really did a fantastic job of depicting the depth of Crusader Era Europe without talking down to its audience and always drawing people in to watch it beginning to end.

Having a great host, like Terry Jones or the not-so-funny yet always enthusiastic Carl Sagan is, instead of very flat people that stick around for a faux interview or two is, I believe, the best possible way in which to you can bring science, math or history down to Earth. They can, with the magic of television editing, hands on interactions and a few extras and/or modest amount of CGI, expand on that and really reproduce things that simply narrated eye candy cannot hope to achieve. Once you've expand on the basics and portray things as interesting and truly deeper than television could depict, people tend to pick up books and want to read even farther into the subject matter.

I also saw The Elegant Universe fairly recently - award winning PBS documentary, whatever, and frankly, I thought it sounded like a bad commercial.)

Were they offering the both the original and a 'free' additional set for $19.99?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Rooting out scientific misconceptions

I like the idea. What does everyone else think?

Good luck with that...

I'm on it: http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/

 

[Naraoia]

The personal issue I have with most of these shows (regardless of their nationality or subject matter), is that they are not really that engaging. One of my favorite and actually rather accurate is Terry Jones' The Crusades (yes, that Terry Jones. It was not only funny, but really did a fantastic job of depicting the depth of Crusader Era Europe without talking down to its audience and always drawing people in to watch it beginning to end.

That sounds awesome. Wish I had someone like that for a history teacher.

Having a great host, like Terry Jones or the not-so-funny yet always enthusiastic Carl Sagan is, instead of very flat people that stick around for a faux interview or two is, I believe, the best possible way in which to you can bring science, math or history down to Earth. They can, with the magic of television editing, hands on interactions and a few extras and/or modest amount of CGI, expand on that and really reproduce things that simply narrated eye candy cannot hope to achieve. Once you've expand on the basics and portray things as interesting and truly deeper than television could depict, people tend to pick up books and want to read even farther into the subject matter.

Totally agreed. Though if you don't think Brian Cox or Marcus du Sautoy fit the bill, we probably have different enthusiasm thresholds.

(Of course, I've been in a state of non-stop enthusiasm about science since I learned to read, and I started with books, so maybe I'm not the most objective judge of that )

Were they offering the both the original and a 'free' additional set for $19.99?

Don't know, I cheated and watched it from here.

 

[lucaspa]

An example of real misconception is: Creationists don't care about science.

Have you looked at AV's signature lately? "Wouldn't you say "science can take a hike" says that this particular creationist doesn't care about science? So, is AV in a minority or the majority among creationists?

Creationists are very willing to throw science under the bus if it conflicts with their belief in a literal Bible. All you have to do is go to the websites for AiG, ICR, or the Discovery Institute to see that. So, push comes to shove between their literal interpretation of the Bible and science, woudn't you say that creationists don't care about science at that point?

 

[lucaspa]

I have no misconception to evolution no matter what my test score says.

ROFL! (holding my sides and wiping tears out of my side). Thank you, juvenissun, for giving me a good laugh today. It's even nicer that you were kind enough to do so at your own expense. Again, thank you.

 

[Hespera]

ROFL! (holding my sides and wiping tears out of my side). Thank you, juvenissun, for giving me a good laugh today. It's even nicer that you were kind enough to do so at your own expense. Again, thank you.

The self parody! he makes if very hard not to laugh.