Paul Otellini, CEO of Intel, the world's largest chip maker, recently explained, "As a global employer, I have the luxury of hiring the best engineers anywhere on earth. If I can't get them from MIT, I'll get them from Tsing Hua."In fact, MIT is also getting some good students from Tsing Hua. Americans are not facing the fact that our economic recovery and our military superiority depend on maintaining our scientific and intellectual leadership. Presently, our average students in math and science rank very low compared to most of the developed nations. For years we have tried to cure this problem by imposing standards, testing, eliminating unions, and spending money. So far these attempts have been ineffective. Why is this?
I have some opinions about this that agree with the conservative David Brooks, but before pursuing this topic I would like to know if you conservatives think this is a serious topic. Many conservatives consider this issue as liberal hand-wringing, and blame the problem on these "self-proclaimed intellectuals" (Palin) themselves.
Yes, I think its a serious topic. Even if one recruits from the USA, the person is likely to be first generation American with immigrant parents having high expectations. If it weren't for our immigrants, we'd have been down the toilet years ago.
ReplyDeleteI agree getting good American students and employees is a serious problem. I have no doubt US primary education standards have declined drastically in the US during my lifetime. College-level standards are also on the way down.
ReplyDeleteSome my best fellow employees and students were not US-born. Many of the very best at Binghamton U. and IBM were Asian.
It is not an accident East Asians have an average IQ about 1/3 of a standard deviation above the average caucasian. Another group is about 2/3 of a standard deviation below average. (See fun with the normal curve for implications of standard deviation differences.)
Some of this is undoubtedly due to "nurture" which includes better pre-natal nutrition, infant care, and -especially- high expectations typical of immigrants and first-generation Americans.
Although it is not "politically correct" to say so, twin studies indicate that "nature" (genetics) plays a role at least equal to "nurture", which explains part of the excellence found in many Asians. Jews of European extraction score a standard deviation above other caucasians.
For the past ten years, I have been teaching online graduate courses and have noticed a definite decline in the academic qualifications of many of my students. (Many of my students are excellent and I am proud to be part of their education.) There is a great deal of pressure for "student retention" which explains how some of them received their Bachelors degrees and why most will receive their Masters.
What is the cause? Well, part of it is, as Joel indicated, that most immigrants and early-generation Americans have greater ethnic and parential pressure to work harder in school and follow through when employed.
Some children raised in the typical luxury of America do not clearly learn the connection between working hard and living and eating well. With everything handed to them "on a silver platter" they feel entitled to consume without any special effort. If they do poorly on a test they (and their parents) blame the teachers and the schools. Personal responsibility has gone down the drain in favor of all sorts of misguided welfare and administrative oversight and enrichment and so-called "affirmative action" (i.e., preferential treatment based on race or ethnicity) programs.
Part of it may be that students in some (most? all?) grade schools are no longer put on separate tracks according to their academic potential. The reason for this is that, when tracks are established, there is too little "diversity" (a nice "weasel" word) in the top track. Thus, our best young minds vegetate in mixed-aptitude classes where they find they can excel without much effort. When they get to a college with high standards and real competition, they are incapable of working as hard as those from less luxurious families.
BUT, PERHAPS IT IS ALREADY TOO LATE :^)
Indeed, Socrates, ca 400 BC, noticed the same problem and is quoted as follows (Plato's The Republic, book IV): "... our youth should be trained from the first in a stricter system, for if amusements become lawless, and the youths themselves become lawless, they can never grow up into well-conducted and virtuous citizens. ... when they have made a good beginning in play ... in a manner how unlike the lawless play of the others ... Thus educated, they will invent for themselves any lesser rules ... I mean such things as these: --when the young are to be silent before their elders; how they are to show respect to them by standing and making them sit; what honour is due to parents; what garments or shoes are to be worn; the mode of dressing the hair; deportment and manners in general."
Ira Glickstein
I don't disagree with Ira's analysis, but here is more. The conservative columnist David Brooks recognizes the problem. He says the “[conservatives’] disdain for liberal intellectuals" had slipped into "disdain for the educated class as a whole," (see also more Brooks) Of course we have other problems, but if the common attitude or culture does not respect academic excellence, no reforms within our schools will work. .
ReplyDeleteIt is true that America did not depend on intellectuals it its earlier history, even though many of our founding fathers were well-educated aristocrats,. Hard work, resourcefulness, inventiveness, and religious faith were more important. They are still just as important. Only in the 20th century did our colleges and universities become a significant influence in American culture. Before WW2 few American universities were considered the equal of European universities,
Respect for learning in the US reached a peak after WW2 where it was clear that technology played a decisive role. After the war, the immigration of European intellectuals, long-range government support of basic research in universities, and the GI bill made them the best in the world. Our graduate schools are still the best, as evidenced by the fact that well-prepared foreign students make up a large fraction of our graduate students. But today our own students are not well prepared. As Joel and Ira remark, we still depend heavily on immigrants. Asian nations are catching up by building first class universities.
High school graduation rates peaked in the U.S. in the late 1960s, at about 80 percent. Since then they have declined. According to Karen Armstrong (The Battle for God), America’s intellectual decline began in the 1960s with the active political mobilization of conservative Christians. The televangelists like Jerry Falwell who founded the Moral Majority movement went against the traditional principle of separating religion and politics.
By the 1980 elections, Pat Robertson proclaimed, “We have the votes to run the country.” And they did! Today, the dominant Republican leaders are conservative Christians, and so is their voting base. Their uncompromising anti-intellectual assaults have resulted in polarization that is paralyzing the government.
These anti-intellectual “decadent conservatives” are giving real conservatives a bad name, just like the hippies gave liberals a bad name. Fundamentalist see both science and reason as a threat. Their fear of alternate values is so great that liberals and intellectuals have become objects of hatred. To them, a liberal education is political propaganda. They mock President Obama because he was a professor (even though he taught constitutional law!). These fundamentalists have made a concerted effort to get elected to school boards with the express purpose of opposing scientific curricula that threaten their beliefs. This is having a domino effect on all aspects of our educational values.
How can we get out of this predicament?
You cited David Brooks several times, but I think it only fair to give those who oppose his view the floor. I've attended three tea party rallies at which I found nothing like what the pundits describe. Try this web site for an expression of a view that opposes that of Brooks.
ReplyDeletehttp://anotherblackconservative.blogspot.com/2010/01/tea-party-movement-david-brooks-has.html
To these people and conservatives like myself, republicans like David Brooks and David Gergen are part of the problem. It isn't a question of being anti-education. It is a question of opposing politicians who are highly indoctrinated by a leftist academic world that too often flies in the face of the hard realities of life. To try to pin the blame for the decline of the United States on the religious-right ignores the manifold of societal forces that are upon us.
Educators have been writing for half a century (at least) about this problem, but we have been saved by our "wretched" immigrants and their kids. The children of privilege and luxury have little need to strive for excellence in anything. Thank God! This fact is nature's great leveler of societies and nations, whether that be Egypt, Athens, Rome, England or the United States of America. If we take a step back, then we see that although we should spur ourselves on to be the best nation in the world, the fight is unwinnable in the long, long run. Like evolution, there is no end to the race. An aristocracy must inevitably fall as it procreates less motivated offspring. A successful democracy contains within its success the seeds of its own descent into mediocrity. If you really must get political about this sort of thing, I propose to you that the Right somewhat slows this descent while the Left accelerates it somewhat.
I challenge some of Howard's (and his sources) basic assumptions.
ReplyDeleteVirtually ALL of the leading conservative "talking heads" have as good or better academic credentials as the liberal "talking heads". I would venture to say that the average Republican voter is more likely to have a college degree than the average Democratic voter. (The fact that most college profs and most journalists and most trial lawyers and most government employees vote Democratic, and perhaps most new college grads as well, is not representative of the average college educated adult working in private business and industry.)
Sen. Obama, when a candidate for President, was not mocked for his Harvard law degree and distinguished role as president of the Harvard Law Review, or for his highly competent professorship in constitutional law, or his service as a community organizer and as a state senator and US senator. The problem we had with him as a candidate for President was his total lack of ever having worked in or run a profit-making business or having any kind of executive experience.
I don't think conservatives disrespect science or engineeering or medical or business graduates at all.
The problem we have is with some pure academics who think that, just because they are the most clever and competent at school work, they are also smarter and better than the average working person who is competent at his or her job.
As I was reading Plato's The Republic I was struck by his quotations from Socrates denegrading the Sophists. Perhaps that is the label we conservatives should put on the elitist "intellectuals" who think they are better than all the rest of us?
As for extreme right-wing Christians who interpret the Bible literally, of course I am worried by some of their beliefs. They and their flocks make up a key component of the Republican base, and we are stuck with that fact. Some have been shown to be scoundrels, but the overwhelming majority are sincere. They really believe God is watching over them and will proterct them if they are honest in their dealings with others and will punish them if they are not. Compare them to the Democratic base of trial lawyers and well-connected businessmen and bankers who depend upon govenment contracts and bailouts, and civil service workers and so on, and the Republican base does not look so bad by comparison.
Ira Glickstein
One of the reasons why we lack the educated pool of people that we need has to do with the inability to suffer pain for future gain. Out west where roads cross open range one sees places where fences come up to the road, but do not cross it. Instead, stripes are painted across the road. Cattle, having experience with metal grates causing uncertain footing and pain in the leg joints, mistake the stripes for a grate and therefore avoid crossing the stripes. In a world of Dr. Benjamin Spock, Summerhill Academy, Sesame Street and other bibles of permissive raising of children (plus absent parents), children don't experience pain for future gain and aren't challenged to do more than they think they can do. In such a world, intellectual laziness becomes a lifelong habit that hems in the cattle.
ReplyDeleteIf one enjoys everything one studies (at whatever level), one hasn't reached the limits of one's talent. The notion that learning should always be entertaining is at the root of the progressive school of education. How can we expect that children educated in this way will ultimately be able to transcend the misery associated with memorizing every bone in the body and their location?.... or fight their way through difficult problems in advanced mathematics?....or pull an all-nighter in order to prepare for the bar exam? Yes, there is joy in learning , but it may be only after much pain and deprivation, when one has finally conquered the subject matter. (This is not only a problem in the USA. I have teacher friends in France who bemoan the fact that the "new" painless pedagogy has arrived in their classrooms after a delay of twenty-five years).
The new topic I raised was the decline of US high schools, especially in the sciences, and what to do to improve them. Joel and Ira agreed this is a serious problem. I gave Armstrong’s view (that represents the opinion of the modern historians I know) that the dominant cause of worldwide cultural change is the rise of fundamentalism (Jewish, Christian, and Muslim).
ReplyDeleteFundamentalism is characterized as both irrational (authority based) and anti-science. In the US over half the states and in Congress, Republican fundamentalists have introduced laws limiting the teaching of science. In many states, they have organized campaigns to take over local school boards to censor literature, rewrite history, and avoid science teaching.
Joel and Ira simply dismiss these facts and come up with their own populist theory. It reduces to the claim that, “The children of privilege and luxury have little need to strive for excellence in anything.” These “unmotivated” offspring of the elite aristocrats are contrasted with the less privileged and consequently highly motivated poor. They offer no evidence for this theory, nor do they suggest how to improve the situation. Both are pessimistic – it’s too late or hopeless.
So let me offer a little optimism. All the statistical studies I know show that children privileged to have well-educated and financially secure parents do better in school than children of the poor. Just three examples: Finland and South Korea currently have the highest worldwide K-12 educational ratings, (along with Singapore and Taiwan). Most of these children are privileged to have good parents and schools (and no fundamentalists). For clues on their success, you should listen to the BBC Report on Finland’s Schools.
You don’t have to go to Finland. In the US, Massachusetts is one of a few exceptions to academic decline. Its students are just behind Singapore and ahead of Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Japan. As in Finland, good parenting and good schools are the answer. Because we have so many academic institutions, many of our students are privileged to have educated parents with good jobs who respect intellectual achievement. You should also check the diversified credentials of our appointed Board of Education; and we do not elect fundamentalists to our local school boards.
I'm shocked at the illogic of a statement like "You should also check the diversified credentials of our appointed Board of Education; and we do not elect fundamentalists to our local school boards."
ReplyDeleteSurely you don't see cause and effect in any of what you wrote. In the state of Hawaii we rejected stealth fundamentalists who tried to get elected to the board of Education. Despite our diverse and scientifically qualified school board we had the lowest or second to lowest rated high schools in the country.
Where is the logic in attributing academic success to: "Finland and South Korea currently have the highest worldwide K-12 educational ratings, (along with Singapore and Taiwan). Most of these children are privileged to have good parents and schools (and no fundamentalists)."
Finland and South Korea (along with Singapore and Taiwan) also have very homogeneous populations. Shall we conclude that their success is due to their lack of ethnic diversity and strong monoculture?
All of your arguments are nothing more than unsupported speculation. It is a measurable fact that today's children have more material goods than ever before. It is a measurable fact that today's kids have more electronic distractions than previous generations. It is a measurable fact that today's kids have more money to buy drugs and alcohol that the post WWII generation. It is a measurable fact that standards for graduation dropped drastially. How can you ignore these facts while jumping around the globe to societies that are different from ours in so many ways that no comparison is possible? I'm astonished that education seems to have no effect no upon reason.
Joel, I didn't expect to be so shocking. I certainly agree with you that there are many differences between countries and many complex causes for differences. But is it your conclusion that we can learn nothing from successful educational experiences and experiments?
ReplyDeleteDoes the complexity of causation mean that no significant cause effect relations can be found? Do you see no cause and effect relation between fundamentalist parents and their children who reject science?
Do you see no causal relation between the quality of Texas schools and their fundamentlist
Texas School Board who cut Darwin out of science and Jefferson out of US history?
I'm sure we can learn from successful experiments carried out under controlled conditions in this country. However, taking for example of Jaime Escalante and his success with Latino kids, we see that the educational establishment cares more about ideology than success. Please see my new post on this subject and
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/02/navarrette.escalante.lessons/index.html
also:
http://reason.com/archives/2002/07/01/stand-and-deliver-revisited
In response to Howard's, "These anti-intellectual “decadent conservatives” are giving real conservatives a bad name, just like the hippies gave liberals a bad name. Fundamentalist see both science and reason as a threat. Their fear of alternate values is so great that liberals and intellectuals have become objects of hatred."
ReplyDeleteI'm glad the statement included mention of the hippies giving liberalism a bad name - good to recognize that the extremes of both sides try to pull us in the wrong direction.
As I get to a comment on education and our competitive edge, let me draw on my previous experience as a Conservative Christian to try to alleviate some fears that many have of "fundamentalists". Just to let everyone know where I am currently in the spectrum, I am a Moderate Christian. I am convinced of both evolution and creation - and I voted for Obama. When many of my liberal friends see almost any expression of Christian belief they automatically label the person a fundamentalist. Please keep in mind that there are widely varying degrees of Christian thought.
In my experience, a large portion of Conservative Christians are influenced by Calvinism which attributes success to evidence of God's blessing. This group forms a very solid base for education in the US. Many of my Conservative friends strongly encourage their children to become SCIENTISTS, doctors, engineers, military officers, etc.
But yes there is a group that does have a fear of evolution and they really want us to believe that the earth is 10,000 years old! And yes they are having some influence but in my experience their influence is waning. The "young earth" is just too hard to believe; it is proper to laugh at them.
While the bulk of Conservative Christians continue to believe that the earth was created, that does not mean they are against scientific education and the innovation that it brings. However, they don't want their children taught that evolution is a purely random act. And - really - none of us know if the initiation of the universe and subsequent evolution of life was random or not. The pure, random chance evolutionist is a person of faith too. Has that faith damaged our education system as well?
I think the primary reason for the weakness in our scientific education system is just that many of our children view this path as too difficult or boring. This is true of the teachers who educate them as well. We shouldn't be upset that our system is educating so many motivated foreign students because many of them stay in the US and continue to help us keep our 26% of world GDP with 5% of world population. We do need to figure out ways to fix our education system, but we are currently holding our own. And there is considerable evidence that we may fare very well - have a look at The Next Hundred Million - Joel Kotkin.
Allow me to back-peddle a little. I said we should laugh at the young earth crowd. This was a mean spirited comment. While I think the ideas they have are very irrational, they are people and people get incredibly off track.
ReplyDeleteThanks Steve Ruberg for rejoining us and also to Howard and Joel for keeping this Blog going while I was absent. It was great to see all twelve "HOT COMMENTS" without my name on a single one. (I was reading and grading Research Papers for my U. Maryland grad class. I read every word the students write and, as all college professors know, had to plow through much muck to find the gems - but they make it all worthwhile.)
ReplyDeleteI agree with Howard and Steve (and I am sure Joel) that extremes on both sides give their own side a bad name. Whenever I see a Tea Party attendee with a racist or otherwise disgusting sign, I cringe - which is why the liberal media seek them out!
My experience with fundamentalists (i.e., literal believers in their Holy Books) of religions including Protestants, Catholics, Mormons and Jews, has been that, while their opinions on origin of life and evolution are IMHO way off the mark, they are not at all "anti-science". Perhaps, since I tend to move in engineering and academic circles, I am more likely to meet rational fundamentalists.
As Joel said, Darwinism is only a small part of science, so, even if evolution is totally rejected, there is still mechanics and chemistry, and nuclear physics and all of technology.
But, as Steve points out, he accepts BOTH Creation and Evolution! That is not too hard to do. Some fundamentalists believe that God Created the Earth and Life exactly as it was 5,700 years ago, and, for whatever reason, He planted fossils and carbon isotopes and so on to make it look like it was much older, perhaps to test our faith. Others believe the Genesis story is metaphorical and God Created the Earth 4.5 Billion years ago and guided the origin and evolution of life up to this day. Many of the Intelligent Design believers accept genetic processes as methods set up and used by the Creator to enable and guide evolution and natural selection.
Some years ago, I attended a lecture by a micro-biologist at a Chassidic Synagogue. The Chasssids are our most literal, Bible-believing Jewish group. The lecturer was an ultra-Orthodox Jew but he was doing cutting-edge work in biology, and he gave an excellent talk. At the end, he was asked how old the Earth was and he gave the religious answer: 5,700-odd years! I think he really believed that! Yet, that "baggage" did not interfere with his interest in BIOLOGICAL science and his work in that field! The human mind is amazing!
Ira Glickstein
PS: I think the neo-Darwininan theory is strong enough to be taught along with Intelligent Design without any fear that it will significantly degrade education in the US. I think Howard's belief that Fundamentalism makes activists anti-science and is responsible for all the acknowledged problems with US education is an amazing rationalization. (Howard knows I am also an amazing rationalizer :^)
Ira, I would appreciate not misstating my position. You say, “I think Howard's belief that Fundamentalism makes activists anti-science and is responsible for all the acknowledged problems with US education is an amazing rationalization.
ReplyDeleteI said in my first post “Of course we have other [educational] problems, but if the common attitude or culture does not respect academic excellence, no reforms within our schools will work.” I also claim that fundamentalism is one source of anti-intellectualism. Do you doubt this?
Steve says, “And as Joel showed so well, supposedly open-minded scientists discriminate against other scientists. Dogma is dogma no matter the source “
ReplyDeleteWhat Joel showed was a short one-sided selection of a long article that expresses a simplistic view of a complex controversy. The opinion itself is just that – Goodstein’s 15-year-old opinion that was hardly supportable then is even less supportable today. To be fair, read the whole article! Just last month there were over 30 papers on cold fusion presented at the annual American Chemical Society Meeting.
I have followed some of the cold fusion papers. Wikipedia gives only a short summary (the references give a more complete review). In the entire 20-year history I do not see any evidence of an inquisition, of a dogmatic authority, or of improper scientific behavior. Strong opinions are not dogma. A dogma is an assertion that is not to be doubted or disputed. The opposite of dogmatism is skepticism, and skepticism is what characterizes the cold fusion controversy.
I do not mean the scientists as individuals are different from normal people. They can be egocentric, angry, offensive, and all that, but the scientific culture with its required open critical discussions, meetings and peer review process excludes inquisitions and dogmas. As the Economist editorialized, the cold fusion "affair" is "exactly what science should be about."
To Steve’s credulous response, I would only answer that not dogma is not dogma no matter how biased the source.
Howard. Scientific attitudes toward global warming may fit your description of dogma. I believe group think has crept into the process. The majority has made up its mind and has stopped listening to those in opposition. You have strong faith in the scientific method but in cases like this where it is impossible to carry out laboratory experiments for verification, opinions and egos get involved. The believers begin to persecute the nonbelievers.
ReplyDeleteI'm personally convinced that dumping so much CO2 into the atmosphere will eventually impact climate and it's probably already too late. But until a whole earth experiment can be run that shows temperature increasing with greater levels of CO2, opposing opinions are still in play. But I don't think the scientific system treats the opposition very well. When does group think become dogma?
Also, while I think Darwinism represents an excellent explanation of origins, are scientists who attempt to disagree treated equally? Do they progress through the academic research system equally? No, they are scoffed at because ... Darwinism is not to be disputed. Which you said is dogma.
Steve, I think your question about equal treatment of dissenters is a real problem in all aspects of life -- in science, in cultural norms like ethics and especially in religion.
ReplyDeleteI will only say that in science dissent is generally treated better than anywhere else. In science dissent is essential. Skepticism and criticism is the norm. Nothing gets accepted in science without the toughest criticism from peers.
However, science does have some rules including consensually accepted repeatable experiments, and logical thought.
If you have a specific objection to current evolution theory, I would be glad to hear it. You may be right!
I'm sorry Howard that I misstated your position when I wrote: "Howard's belief that Fundamentalism ... is responsible for all the acknowledged problems with US education".
ReplyDeleteI am ashamed of my snarky comment. I was way overstating your views. I know you and I (and Joel and Steve) agree that there are many more problems with US education than the anti-science attitudes of some Fundamentalists.
But, you seem to be more exercised by Fundamentalists than others on this Blog. In your April 13 comment you credited Karen Armstrong with the view that "America’s intellectual decline began in the 1960s with the active political mobilization of conservative Christians." On April 14 you seemed to agree, writing "I gave Armstrong’s view (that represents the opinion of the modern historians I know) that the dominant cause of worldwide cultural change is the rise of fundamentalism (Jewish, Christian, and Muslim). Fundamentalism is characterized as both irrational (authority based) and anti-science." On April 15 you wrote "Do you see no causal relation between the quality of Texas schools and their fundamentalist Texas School Board who cut Darwin out of science and Jefferson out of US history?"
I read the linked Texas School Board story and saw no reference to cuting Darwin nor Jefferson out of history. Do you imagine Texas textbooks will leave Jefferson out of the list of US Presidents? Or fail to credit him with writing the Declaration of Independence? Nope, what they did was cut him from one list of writers who inspired revolutions. Where does the linked story say Darwin will be cut? (In 1984 they did rule that publishers could omit mention of Darwin, but I do not know if any Texas textbooks actually did that. Do you? Please let me know because I would protest such a decision along with you.)
Ira Glickstein
Howard said:
ReplyDelete"However, science does have some rules including consensually accepted repeatable experiments, and logical thought.
If you have a specific objection to current evolution theory, I would be glad to hear it. You may be right!"
Joel responds: I would like to know the "consensually accepted repeatable experiments" that demonstrate the mechanism for the quantum leaps that must take place in evolution. From Andy Clark (http://brokensymmetry.typepad.com/broken_symmetry/2010/04/the-internet-as-a-cricket-singing-burrows.html):
"Amazingly, several species of mole cricket (especially Scapteriscus acletus, and Gryllotalpa vinae ) exploit physically perfect Klipsch horns as a means of efficient sound production. These crickets tweak their own burrow-building activities so that one tunnel takes the form of a large bulb, while another flares like an exponential horn. The cricket sits in a narrow constriction between these two animal-built structures and stridulates (sings). In this way the burrow acts as a ‘tuned impedance transformer’ carefully fitted to the specific carrier wave of the species. Sometimes, a single cricket will sit at the intersection of two such tunnel/bulb arrangements. With the ground itself acting as a very large (near-infinite) baffle, and the boost of a double exponential horn, these crickets obtain an almost unimaginable increase in acoustic efficiency. In the case of Gryllotalpa vinae a full 34% of the muscle power used for stridulation is now turned into sound . Compare this to a maximum of 5% for an unaided field cricket, though even this is admirable since high end audio loudspeakers, as Turner points out, manage only a meager conversion efficiency of about 2% (of power into sound)."
Joel continues: This amazingly complex behavior will not work unless everything is just right. Although a modern day mole cricket may sit and tune its burrow until the sound reaches its maximum, one has to ask why its evolutionary ancestors would begin a behavior which must have been fruitless at its outset when the proper configuration had not yet been "discovered." Generally stated, complex systems need to possess evolutionary advantages in their simple disconnected forms if they are ever to be perpetuated. As an atheist, I don't say that this argues against evolution, since I take it on FAITH that eventually we will discover all the rules that make it work. I don't think we know all those rules now. I think we must accept the criticism of others and allow alternatives to be presented.
Joel, Steve, and Ira,
ReplyDeleteIt should be obvious that there are innumerable events and behaviors in nature and in the mind for which we have no satisfactory explanation.
So you have two possibilities (maybe more). You can try to invent a scientific theory , or you can invent a religious theory to describe these events.
By a scientific theory I mean a theory that can be verified or disproved by consensually accepted experimental means, and the theory itself must satisfy logical conditions like inner consistency. (There is more to science, but I'm being brief.)
By a religious theory I am not so sure of its limits, but it is often based on scriptural authority, or a faith based on one's personal experiences which may be real, but not consensually testable.
I think we all use both types of model. What I would argue is that it is essential that you learn to recognize the difference between the two. This difference should be taught in school and recognized in all disciplines.
Fundamentalists like the Texas school board and dozens of other similar cases, have not made this distinction. Fortunately, all the court tests of these cases I know have made this distinction clearly and correctly.
Howard said:
ReplyDeleteI think we all use both types of model. What I would argue is that it is essential that you learn to recognize the difference between the two. This difference should be taught in school and recognized in all disciplines.
Joel responds:
I think that is just what will happen if both evolution and creationism are taught side by side in public schools.
Based upon what we have said here Rebecca Newberger Goldstein's new book might make a good read. I heard her being interviewed on NPR this morning.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/26/AR2010012603189.html
Joel suggests that students will understand the difference between evolution and creationism
ReplyDelete“if both evolution and creationism are taught side by side in public schools.”
I have tried this in a graduate level course on evolution in which I had two fundamentalist students (one was also attending a local seminary). Apparently this was too late. Their minds were made up (although we had some good discussions).
The problem is that scientists accept the fact that their models are only approximations, and in the long run probably they will be replaced by better models. Fundamentalist believe their models are true, period! They are the word of God.
I am at a loss as to how to introduce creationism in a science class except to say it does not belong in a science class. You will waste time arguing metaphysics and not have time to get to the substance of the course.
Howard said: I have tried this in a graduate level course on evolution in which I had two fundamentalist students (one was also attending a local seminary). Apparently this was too late. Their minds were made up (although we had some good discussions).
ReplyDeleteJoel responds: Yes, you were very late. I'm suggesting that both theories need to be taught when students take biology in high school. That's a time when they tend to be skeptics about both religion and science. Your original point was about the damage that fundamentalism does to general attitudes toward science and technology (and therefore science education). For me it's not a question of changing the minds of fundamentalists, but changing the attitude of the general population. I would say that scientists have done more damage to that view than fundamentalists. Too many scientists like to denigrate Newton and the Newtonian revolution. The public echos back an attitude that science is based upon faith without discerning the differences in faith. Newton's laws still stand. Momentum is still conserved even in a relativistic age. "For every action ...." still stands. " A body in motion..." still stands. The only thing that changes is orbital computations out to umpteenth decimal places. Newton was humble enough to say that he would not have seen so far were it not for the fact that he stood on the shoulders of giants. If modern day scientists weren't so busy trying to pump up their own accomplishments by diminishing those of Newton, perhaps there would be more public respect for the truth of science.
I think Joel pointed out earlier that this discussion of origins really has little impact on our ability to transition education to science and subsequently science to innovations that build a healthy economy. Yet here we are once again discussing origins. I think our society has some amount of respect for science but a large portion of the population (not merely fundamentalists) doubts the official scientific position regarding origins. So I don't agree with Joel's comment that all of science is in doubt, however the scientific view on origins is not widely believed.
ReplyDeleteI think this happens because science really has over-extended its reach here. We can't repeat the big bang "experiment" so we can't know with certainty what caused the event or if the event was caused. Watson and Crick were somewhat successful in creating some of the precursors of life by simulating estimated conditions on the early earth but this could merely show that a sentient being is necessary for construction of cell components. Lastly, I think a major hurdle is that observation of the order and complexity of biological organisms makes it difficult to believe that this all "just happened" ... the formation of the airplane when a tornado encounters a junk yard.
But Ira has opened the discussion of origins, once again, with his Earth Day discussion of the Gaia.
Joel, I agree with you that we need to improve the view of the general population, not the fundamentalists – that’s hopeless. We definitely need better science teaching. For example, our knowledge is way ahead of what teachers know. The Internet courses like Academic Earth are helping.
ReplyDeleteBut I think you are underestimating the effectiveness of the incessant campaigns of many organizations like The Discovery Institute to devalue science by controlling what is taught in public schools. Intelligent design in just one issue. They have been successful in electing conservative school boards and in mandating textbooks like Pandas and People. These organizations are supported by many politically influential republicans. Intelligent design is being taught now in many schools by believing teachers. It is clear that this is not science. I don’t understand why you and Ira think it would help to teach intelligent design in science classes. What exactly do you propose teaching?
According to a recent Pew Trust poll, over half (57%) of white “evangelicals” (they mean fundamentalist) hold the view that humans have existed in their present form since the beginning of time! This is just one of their anti-science beliefs.
As you would expect, the poll also shows that almost all scientists (97%) believe that all life and humans have evolved over time (Darwinian evolution by natural selection is accepted by 87%). What is scary is that this educated view is shared by only one third (32%) of all Americans, while in the rest of the educated world this is not even a significant issue (except to ridicule Americans).
Your opinion that, “scientists have done more damage to that [anti-science] view than fundamentalists” doesn’t make sense from my experience. I would be very surprised if you could find a single physics teacher who has, as you claim, “denigrated” or “diminished” Newton. I don’t think you have been around enough physicists. Everyone accepts the Correspondence Principle -- the idea that any acceptable new theory must reduce to Newton’s well-established theory wherever it works. The first test a physicist gives a speculative theory, no matter how weird, is to make sure it reduces to Newtonian mechanics.
Incidentally, in the same poll (which is full of more data about scientists) I noticed the striking statistics: 55% of scientists are democrats and 32% are independent. Only 6% of scientists are republicans.
Howard said: I don’t understand why you and Ira think it would help to teach intelligent design in science classes. What exactly do you propose teaching?
ReplyDeleteJoel responds: I would state that there are two ways of explaining our presence of the planet. One involves spontaneous or natural processes and the other requires divine intervention. (I'd point out myths of other cultures, if I could get away with it, but that's not crucial.) I would present the principles of evolution and the objections made by creationists. I would leave it to the student to decide which he or she wanted to accept. There grade would not be "outcome based."
Here are some comments from wikipedia about the a George Mason University course which is much more than what I imagine for high schoolers. I also think that the comments of Aaron Croucher are relevant. See http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~axs/id/ for Sloman's excellent: "Why scientists and philosophers of science should teach intelligent design (ID) alongside the theory of evolution".
From Wikipedia:
George Mason University Biology Department introduced a 1-credit course on the creation/evolution controversy, and Emmett Holman, an associate professor of philosophy from the university, found that as students learn more about biology, they find objections to evolution less convincing. He concluded that "teaching the controversy" would undermine creationists’ criticisms, and that the scientific community’s resistance to this approach was bad public relations. Rather than being taught in a mainstream science course, it would be a separate elective course, probably taught by a scientist but called a course on "philosophy of science", "history of science", or "politics of science and religion". Biologist Tom A. Langen argues in a journal letter entitled "What is right with ‘teaching the controversy’?" that teaching students about this controversy will help them understand the demarcation between science and other ways of obtaining knowledge about nature. Similar positions have been expressed by atheists Julian Baggini and Aaron Sloman.
Joel, George Mason is doing it right in my view. I agree that religious views should be taught in history and philosophy of science courses.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find worrisome is locally elected conservative school boards deciding on what science textbooks are acceptable in science classes and what the curriculum material will include.
Textbook companies have actually altered text to satisfy school boards so they don't lose sales.
Howard, I think our textbooks are a problem no matter what the source. Textbooks are too big a business and there isn't enough competition today. In our district the textbooks are part of a series and for the sake of continuity each school and each grade must use textbooks from the same series even if not judged the best. In this way kids who move from one school to another are not inconvenienced. That sounds like bureaucratic nonsense to me.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the greatest barrier to a scientific approach to life is the belief in magical luck not God. Try watching a TV show called "Deal or No Deal." I won't try to explain it, because it's complicated. Let's just say that the contestant is called upon time and time again to make a decision based upon probability,value and their "gut instinct". You'll see many, many people who ignore logic and go with their gut, or a belief that they're lucky that day or because a certain number is their child's birth date. As a encouragment, let me say that Ira also finds the behavior of the contestants interesting. Moments ago I watched in horror as a pitiful, obese male nurse with significant financial obligations turned down a sure prize of about $420,000 for a fifty-fifty chance. at one million dollars. He was convinced by his sister that he should make this choice, because the number eleven is unlucky at the hospital where many patients die in the eleventh month of the year. This is not at all unique. Intuition triumphs too often over logic. I haven't heard contestants invoke God, but almost all of them invoke some sort of numerological "logic."
Howard reports "Only 6% of scientists are republicans." [April 26, 2010 8:54 AM].
ReplyDeleteThat means that when almost any professional or academic scientific organization weighs in on political issues, they may inadvertently slant their recommendations in opposition to GOP-supported policies.
In other words, they may utilize their science credentials (which we assume are totally valid in their domain of expertise) to imbue undeserved respect for their opinions in areas far afield.
I am speaking here of totally honest opinions by undoubtedly bright scientists. Of course, there is always the possibility that some unscrupulous scientists may use their positions of respect to argue selfishly for programs and policies that will yield research grants for themselves.
Ira Glickstein