Thinking like a scientist
Jerry Coyne made a crucial point about this De Dorian Sci Ed 101 stuff.
…teaching evolution and dispelling creation provides students with a valuable lesson: it teaches them to think scientifically—surely one of the main points of a science class. They learn to weigh evidence and to show how that evidence can be used to discriminate between alternative explanations. It’s of little consequence to me that one alternative explanation comes from a literal interpretation of scripture. Indeed, it’s useful, for this is a real life example—one that’s going on now—of how alternative empirical claims are fighting for primacy in the intellectual marketplace. What better way to engage students in the scientific method?
Exactly. It’s a terribly narrowed and pinched version of teaching that De Dora is defending here. (He seems to be trying to claim this isn’t what he wants, it’s just what the law compels, but I don’t really believe him. I think he has a visceral dislike of all but the most apologetic atheism and I think that dislike infects everything he says on this subject. I could be wrong though – he writes so clumsily that it’s really impossible to be sure exactly what he is saying.)
Bizarrely though, De Dora said much the same thing himself at one point, but apparently without realizing he’d done it. He’s confused.
…the answer seems to be that we should ensure our high school science teachers are instructing students on how to think like a scientist, and imparting to students the body of knowledge scientists have accrued (and that all of our teachers generally are doing similar in their respective fields). From there, the children take that knowledge as they will.
God he’s a bad writer. But never mind that – the point is that he slipped up and said that teachers should be teaching students how to think like a scientist. So they should, but that means teachers need to teach students how anyone knows all this stuff, how the “body of knowledge” was collected and argued over and questioned and criticized – which includes for instance what it replaced, what previous claims to knowledge shaped it or got in its way or motivated it – and so on. It’s not enough to just open children’s heads and dump in a quart or two of Facts. If the Constitution requires science teachers to restrict themselves to such an impoverished version of teaching, then that’s a terrible worrying tragic situation. If it doesn’t, De Dora is talking nonsense.
Massimo is very annoyed that so many people are unimpressed by De Dora. Massimo does tend to exaggerate…
And speaking of content, what was so witless, wanky, wishy-washy, and witless about De Dora’s post? Oh, he dared question (very politely, and based on argument) one of the dogmas of the new atheism: that religious people (that’s about 90% of humanity, folks) ought (and I use the term in the moral sense) to be frontally assaulted and ridiculed at all costs, because after all, this is a war, and the goal is to vanquish the enemy, reason and principles be damned.
That’s rationally speaking?
‘…teaching evolution and dispelling creation provides students with a valuable lesson: it teaches them to think scientifically—surely one of the main points of a science class’
Bugger – I just made this exact same point over on your previous thread!
It’s precisely because empirically testable religious claims are widely held that makes them ideal working hypotheses on which to demonstrate the usefulness of the scientific method.
UK posters will be familiar with the panel show ‘QI’ hosted by Stephen Fry. They’ll probably find, like myself, that the answers they remember the longest will be the ones that fly in the face of long-held assumptions.
Challenging beliefs has a powerful pedalogical purpose beyond simply teaching a new, more accurate set of beliefs. It teaches a way of thinking. Without that science is little more than a series of lists.
Everything I have seen from De Dora shows muddled thinking. I am also disappointed with Massimo’s attacks on several people.
“God he’s a bad writer.”
Once again my cue to jump in and remark how you are one of the very best intellectual writers today, Ophelia. The whole history of how knowledge is won -and when ground is lost- is vital to scientific thinking.
(Okay, I’ll go back to painting quietly in my corner now.)
Aside from the philosophically stupid things that De Dora is writing, it’s rather amazing how obtuse his understanding of the legal situation is.
As the countless court cases upholding the right to publicly display this or that religiously-themed object show, the standard in the US is whether anything endorsed (directly or otherwise) by the government has an overriding secular purpose.
Teaching children in public schools what is true and what is false about the universe in which we live is certainly an overriding secular purpose, which means that any affronts to specific religious beliefs implicit in such pedagogy are perfectly legal under our First Amendment to the Constitution.
Science is an entirely secular enterprise, and it is not the duty of science teachers to censor themselves when describing how science works and what it has discovered, to avoid contradicting irrational religious beliefs. If science shows that the earth is 4.6 billion years old, while a quaint religion that has been a minority belief system for the duration of its existence declares an age of 6000 years, so much the worse for the false belief.
And for the record, all religions are minority religions. No belief system, supernatural or otherwise (consider Taoism and Confucianism), has ever had a majority share on all the minds in the world. Those who appeal to the localized majority status of their favorite delusion to justify intrusive laws and practices are merely being provincial.
He is also extremely naïve about education. I know I have harped on this before, but everyone should look at “How People Learn” available for free browsing from National Academies Press (nap.edu). It discusses how difficult it is to overcome misconceptions, but is clear that you must confront them head on. If students believe the earth is 6000yo and you teach them that the earth is 4.5byo, even demonstrating how the evidence was obtained, you will find that as soon as the course is over they will revert to their misconception of young earth. As a teacher you must demonstrate why a 6000yo earth is wrong before they can change their thinking. They must see the error of their ways to move on. Pussyfooting around the issue will result in no education occurring.
Michael, thank you!
Here’s the direct link: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309070368
H.L. Mencken’s comments on the Scopes trial are an almost perfect drop-in here.
“[I]t is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false. To admit that the false has any standing in court, that it ought to be handled gently because millions of morons cherish it and thousands of quacks make their livings propagating it—to admit this, as the more fatuous of the reconcilers of science and religion inevitably do, is to abandon a just cause to its enemies, cravenly and without excuse.”
Remind me again what’s new about the new atheists.
The more I read his blog entries, the more I suspect that De Dora has, concealed deep in the back of a dusty attic, another blog. That one, however, contains entries that increase in thoughtfulness, logic and accuracy each day. Come on, De Dora (ian), allow us to read that one instead!
Post 2 by shatterface:
“Challenging beliefs has a powerful pedalogical purpose beyond simply teaching a new, more accurate set of beliefs.”
Like any religion, at all, you mean?
That unquestioning acceptence of dogma, with no proof or evidence to support it is equal to properly-done science, and the results thus obtained?
Excellent comments.
Mind you, there is that research that points in the other direction – that correcting misconceptions enforces them rather than dispelling them. But I think that was to do with news media rather than with systematic education. I certainly hope so!
Ophelia, Of course teachers should teach students to think scientifically and impart critical thinking skills. I see nothing that suggests Michael DeDora thinks otherwise. The question is whether to do it in the specific way that involves directly confronting and challenging students’ beliefs about religious matters. There are lots of other ways to do it.
For example in a critical thinking class (let’s pretend they exist at the pre-college level–they should!) would it be OK for a teacher to ask students to assess the doctrine of transubstantiation or the resurrection to develop reasoning skills? I would think not (for lots of reasons). The point is not that teachers should “stick to the facts” and not impart critical thinking skills. It’s just that they should stay away from religion.
Why? Well, long story. But one concern I have is for minorities (Jews, atheists, etc). In a place like Texas, if religion gets to be a legit. school topic, it’s a sure thing that students are going to be asked to “critically think” about the horrors of atheism and other minority religious positions. If I’m against that, I’ve got to be against biology teachers directly criticizing biblical creationism.
‘For example in a critical thinking class (let’s pretend they exist at the pre-college level–they should!) would it be OK for a teacher to ask students to assess the doctrine of transubstantiation or the resurrection to develop reasoning skills? I would think not (for lots of reasons). The point is not that teachers should “stick to the facts” and not impart critical thinking skills. It’s just that they should stay away from religion.’
There’s a world of diference between a science teacher contradicting an untestable religious claim and challenging an empirically testable claim about the age of the world.
Students are under no legal obligation to declare their religion, as far as I’m aware. What if a child says that cavemen and dinosaurs co-existed but you don’t know whether they got this impression from a creationist theme park or from The Flintstones? Do you have to determine the source of their misconception before challenging it? What if half the class are creationist and the others watch too much Hannah Barbera? Should you segregate them and educate only the cartoon fans?
“in a critical thinking class…would it be OK for a teacher to ask students to assess the doctrine of transubstantiation or the resurrection to develop reasoning skills?”
Ah but that’s a carefully chosen example, isn’t it. That’s not where the problem arises. The problem arises where a particular religious belief contradicts something that is being taught – in a class on geology for instance, or ancient history, or medicine (not that that’s taught pre-college, but for the sake of argument). The problem arises if/when there is an explicit rule that You Must Not say religious belief X is wrong, period. I could probably agree to a looser rule – don’t bring up religious belief X if you don’t have to, just for safety, for instance – I would think it was highly regrettable but I might be able to resign myself. But what if a student mentions the belief? De Dora’s suggestion is that the teacher should just say “Just memorize these facts that will be on the exam.” I think that’s malpractice.
Imagine a class in American Revolutionary History where you could talk all you wanted about the American colonists and the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution…. but weren’t allowed to mention Monarchy, England or King George III.
Wow. Massimo can’t write for shit, either.
Ah, but Siamang, we have learned that arbitrary selection of materials is what is called “reasonable” and “critical thinking skills”. So we’ve also learned that, you can say “All swans are white”. But oh no, don’t you dare go on to say that “All non-swans are non-white” — that’s well outside of the jurisdiction of critical thinking!
(My above comment made a stupid mistake. “All non-swans are non-white” should read “All non-white-things are non-swans”. I was on my way out the door and regret the mistake.
Ordinarily this is unforgivable. Though, in my feeble defense, at least I recognize that the error really is a mistake.)
The age of the earth is critical to teaching biology. Transubstantiation and resurrection of the dead are not. A 6000yo earth would be a major blow to evolution, if it were true. The other two, while troubling to science as a whole, are not specific to biology or evolution. I can’t imagine either of them coming up in a biology class. A better example might Adam and Eve as the first humans.
Quite – hence my suggestion that transubstantiation and resurrection were carefully chosen. Of course I have no problem agreeing that, say, the math teacher shouldn’t start class by saying “There is no God!” But that isn’t the issue.
A discussion of transubstaniation is not appropriate for a science class. A discussion about why the Earth cannot be 6000 year old is appropriate. If some student or a student’s parent has problems with the second discussion, it’s because they want to discuss religion rather than science.
The question of whether or not transubstantiation or resurrection of Christ really take/took place seems like an excellent example for a critical thinking class.
Is it true? How do we know or how could we know?
For instance, one could compare the chemical composition of communion wine before and after it is blessed. Does the observed effect (if any) depend on the denomination of the person who blessed it?
Now there’s a pioneering piece of research!
How could we know Christ was really dead before he came back, supposing that he did? A bit harder to do experiments here as we’re talking about one-off past events.
If there’s something unreasonable about all that, I can’t see what it is. It might offend some students or their parents, but that doesn’t make it unreasonable. In fact, such objectors are in the wrong. (There are obvious objections to doing all this as a matter of tactics, but that’s a different issue.)
Of course my examples are carefully chosen! I’m trying to offer a reductio ad absurdum of the idea that class activities are legitimate just so long as they improve scientific reasoning, critical thinking skills, and the like. I thought that was what you were saying on behalf of discussing creationism in a biology class. My reply is–but that’s not enough. You can develop skills by attacking religious doctrines (of all sorts), but you can develop the same skills in other ways.
By the way, at the college level critical thinking teachers do teach these skills by having students examine pseudoscience like creationism and I think that’s fine. It seems to me there’s a much stronger case for keeping religion out of schools at lower levels, where there’s much less choice about what school to go to and whose class to take.
I’m wondering–are you literally quoting DeDora when you quoted him as saying “Just memorize these facts that will be on the exam”?
Stephen, I agree, and I think the argument needs to be pushed all the way. Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that the courts were to come down in the way that Russell worries about. What would it entail about what a teacher can or cannot reasonably say in the classroom?
I say, nothing. If the law cannot regard trivial logical inference as “reasonable”, then the law undermines itself. For we could no longer rely on the powers of reason to figure out what the laws even mean. Civil disobedience would be the only option left open to the thinking person. That’s unfortunate, of course, but it would call for ridicule of all aspects of the system that knowingly or naively act as apologists for a ludicrous system of arbitrary power.
Francis Ayala says creationism and intelligent design are bad science and bad theology. Seems to me, by confronting a 6000yo earth and Adam and Eve as the first humans, we are killing two birds with one stone. Both scientists and theologians should be happy.
I get the feeling that many individuals would declare victory if on the next poll, a majority of US citizens checked “evolution is true” – no matter what these people actually understand or believe.
Jean – okay, carefully chosen in a different way from the one I thought. Sorry.
No, I’m not saying it’s fine to challenge religion head-on if that would improve critical thinking. I’m saying it’s not fine to require teachers not to say that the earth is more than 6K years old, in (for instance) a science class.
No I wasn’t literally quoting De Dora in that bit, but it was close – that’s from his passage of dialogue in which the (ideal) teacher says about religious beliefs something like “That’s for you to decide but remember, this is what will be on the exam.” A horribly crude, bullying, teach-to-the-test version of education. I think it’s vastly more insulting than saying the earth is more than 6 thousand years old.
It sounds to me like he’s just saying that teachers should make it clear to students that their job is to impart skills and information, not “convictions.” It’s up to each student what they really believe.
If a teacher picks out 6K as a number worth discussion, they could do it in different ways. (1) They could link the number directly to the bible and fundamentalist religion. I’d call that a no-no. (2) They could point out that there are creationist “scientists” around who think the earth is 6,000 years old, and discuss how they look at things. At most, I’d think #2 was legitimate, but the downside is that it gives these people legitimacy.
I don’t think that that is what De Dora was doing at all, viz., imparting skills and information. Skills vis a vis science, history, ethics, etc. implies the abililty to look critically at beliefs. Telling someone that it’s simply up to him what he believes, but here are some answers that will be expected on the exam, is not a way of conveying skills.
Regarding transfiguration, whether carefully chosen in one way or another or not, it presupposes a particular way of thinking about substance and essence, a way that is in conflict with basic chemistry and the ideas of atomic and molecular structure of matter. One way in which this is relevant is that alchemy assumed that there was some way of changing the essence of things in much the same way that transubstantiation believed that the priest changed the essence, but not the appearance, of the bread and wine of the eucharist. This is an important bit of critical knowledge, and, if my school days, away off there in the fifties of the last century – oh my! -, are anything to go by, it will come up quite naturally. It’s not a question of giving anyone legitimacy or not; it’s simply a matter of educating them.
Of course, none of this takes into consideration the bizarre interpretation of the American constitution that seems to be at issue here. Somehow, I can’t see Jefferson, or so many of the others, finding this a plausible way of understanding what was meant by the separation of church and state. In fact, surely the point of this was to privatise religion, not to hobble education with religious pathology. But here I speak from ignorance.
“Skills and information” is still an impoverished, minimalist, depressing idea of education. I’m not sure how “convictions” got into it. But as for “It’s up to each student what they really believe” – well of course it is, ultimately, but if that is taken to mean that teachers can’t give them anything to work with – then, again, we are back to an emptied-out, dreary, utilitarian version of education. That is the real insult; exposing students to unfamiliar or challenging ideas is the real respect.
I don’t think we’re faced with such a stark choice–either we allow teachers to challenge some religious beliefs, or we’re left with dreary, dull, minimalist, utilitarian education. It’s nice to have a classroom where there are no limits whatever, and you can do that at the college level, but I think at the lower level there are lots of factors that make it different. On some very basic matters, parents legitimately want to remain the shapers of their kids’ attitudes, even if the kids are in school 7 hours a day. So–yes, that’s a bit limiting, but there’s always college.
What I get out of these debates is: if you don’t believe in evolution, then anyone and everyone can piss on your religious beliefs. If you do believe in evolution then your religious beliefs are off limits.
It’s not only De Dora’s concept of teaching that’s “narrowed and pinched”; his conception of science itself has such a limited purview that it need only discuss data and not ideas disproved by the very same data. Of course this guts precisely the critical mechanism that makes science effective at gathering knowledge over time.
Seems those inclined to accomodationism are always forwarding one of these curiously amputated versions of science. It goes hand in hand with Pigliucci’s view of science as definitionally excluded from investigating/falsifying supernatural claims.
Pussyfooting around creationists, trying not to upset them is the worst thing that rational people can do.
We need to stop giving dangerously erroneous beliefs the soft touch and show them for what they are.
Madeline Kara Neumann died because her religious parents prayed for her diabetes to go away, and left her with no medical attention. Anyone that does not tackle creationist idiocy is siding with the type of people who are so stupidly religious that they would let their children die hideously in agony.
“God he’s a bad writer.”
Could it be that English isn’t his first language?
“but there’s always college.”
No there isn’t. Of course there isn’t.
I know, that’s not how you meant it, but still, the fact that there isn’t is relevant. For many people school is their only shot at learning, so the more impoverished that learning is, the more tragic that situation is. We can’t just shrug and say there’s always college. Lots of people are stuck with whatever they get from age 5 to age 18 (or 16).
It may be impossible to do anything about all these cautious limitations, but we should at least not treat them as a form of respect. That’s not what they are.
At the higher level, there’s such a thing as respectful deference and tact, but also such a thing as respectful confrontation. There’s room for both. At the lower level, you’ve got powerless kids, and parents wanting to be the primary influence. There needs to a sharper line between school topics and non-school topics. Here in Texas, it does not go well when teachers decide to get into morality, politics, or religion. Kids with minority views are at their mercy, and it…irritates…me.
Right. That I can see. You don’t want them Jesusing your kids, so in fairness they shouldn’t be Darwining the other kids when that’s not truly part of the curriculum. I think one can make a principled argument that differentiates the two, but I can see why the pragmatic argument is quite different.
The age of earth is only a detail(though an essential one) in all science education. If a science teacher during one lesson says explicitely that the world is not youger than 10000 years, I don’t think anybody makes fuzz about it. Moderate religious parents don’t take the bible literarily, so they will not be shocked. Creationist parents have their bias against “godless” science anyway. For them, it doesn’t matter if the teacher says “billions of years” or “not under 10000 years”.
Many seem to be concerned about the straw-man anti-religious science teacher who constantly picks miracles from scripture as examples to be falsified during lessons. Under such teacher, a religious student could feel very uncomfortable and would have a good reason to complain.
But do such teachers exist? If not, why are people proposing new (politically correct) methods for science teachers? I think some über-accommodationists have lost their touch with reality.
I don’t think we’re faced with such a stark choice–either we allow teachers to challenge some religious beliefs, or we’re left with dreary, dull, minimalist, utilitarian education.
Yeah, I agree. That’s why–though I think De Dora is wrong about the “myth” thing–his critics are wrong about how dreary his view of education is. There’s plenty of ways to engage students in science without talking about religion at all. And if the teacher is good at engaging the kids in science, then they will have the tools to question religion on their own if they wish to, even if they don’t go to college.
Still, I think science teachers should be able to criticize creationism—precisely because it’s NOT purely religious. It’s masquerading as scientific theory, and its proponents treat the debate as if it’s a clash of conflicting scientific theories. I think a crucial distinction that De Dora misses is the distinction between an openly faith-based notion and a theory that makes pretensions to scientific status (while still having strong connections to religion). In the latter case, it’s almost like the religious belief is intruding itself into the classroom, so the teacher has to take note of it.
Well I agree too about the stark choice, but I’m not sure I agree about De Dora’s view of education. Given what he has said so far, he does seem to be urging just such a choice.
That may be, Jenavir, but it’s hard to know what his view is because – as OB pointed out elsewhere – he is a terrible writer. Not just lacking panache, but mechanically and syntactically clumsy. Unskilled. It gets in the way of expressing whatever point he thinks he’s trying to express.
If memory serves, another commenter took on OB’s critique of his writing style on, but mistook that critique for simple “distaste” for De Dora’s “style.” That wasn’t it.
Of course, it’s a universal law that when one criticizes someone else’s writing, one inevitably makes a stupid writing mistake. I’ve had my comeuppance.
The sentence should have read:
**If memory serves, another commenter took on OB’s critique of his writing style, but mistook that critique for simple “distaste” for De Dora’s “style.”**
Heh. Yes – my reply just above yours indicates uncertainty about just what De Dora’s view is. I nearly said that’s because he does so much to obscure it, but have been belaboring the point so much on Ron Lindsay’s post that I decided not to belabor it again here. This is because I’m such a nice nice nice nice nice person.