Throw out the facts, lets teach myths

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Buddha12, Apr 25, 2012.

  1. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    I'm quite aware of the SPIN this is getting.

    I agree with your assessment about what is "Widely Believed" simply because of the media spin this is getting, but what I'm curious about is how you reconcile this belief with the actual Bill that was passed and it's relationship to the Tennessee Curriculum Framework?

    From the Bill:

    AMENDMENT #1 of the Bill clarifies that the bill would apply to scientific subjects and science courses "taught under the curriculum framework developed by the state board of education."

    Here's some key parts of Tennessee's ACTUAL curriculum framework for Biology 1,2 and Earth Sciences addresssing both Climate Change and Evolution.


    It appears to me that Tennessee has a well rounded scientific curriculum and that students who meet those "performance indicators" above will understand the scientific basis for Evolution and changes affecting our climate etc.

    Indeed it seems to clearly provide the students with the scientific knowledge to refute Creationists and discuss Climate Change.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Exactly! And the greatest holiness comes out of Kansas, if the history of this issue is any judge.

    Must be why they based Supernatural there. Shooting demons with rock salt never seemed so pure before.

    Listen not to the dark priests of Gould and Orr; their quest for knowledge will only land them in the pit of ignorance! Sort of ironically, really.

    And answering sarcasm with sarcasm comes from the Devil.

    Is there any doubt who's pushing the bill?

    There's no reason that we can't settle for 100%. I'm a glass full sort of guy.

    Performance indicators aren't the same topic as equal teaching time for creationism.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Nothing in the Bill allows teaching Creationsim, indeed, Creationism is a religious doctrine and not a scientific theory and thus not covered under the Bill's protections.

    And yes, Performance indicators do indeed indicate what the teachers have to teach the students.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    And that's the interesting part - on the one hand, this bill is clearly catering to creationist types who want to undermine or "question" evolution in classrooms. On the other hand, its wording is sufficiently reserved that it doesn't actually allow that - it only allows objective, scientific criticisms. So, the lawmakers are trying to throw a bone to the creationists without incurring any real liability. The question now is what will happen - will the creationists be emboldened enough to start "teaching the controversy" and, if so, will the fact that the criticisms in question are not objective and scientific cause them to be punished for such?

    Basically it looks like the lawmakers in question are attempting to punt on this issue, but may just end up creating that much bigger a mess for themselves.
     
  8. Cavalier Knight of the Opinion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    157
    That does not say teachers are limited to teaching what's in the state curriculum, only that the law applies to the topics covered in the curriculum. So,if the state curriculum includes the theory of gravity, then whatever else the curriculum requires, the teacher is free to teach the weaknesses of that theory. Hooray?

    In fact, the section (d) you quote makes it clear that the State Board of Education cannot limit a given teacher from overemphasizing the so-called "weaknesses" of any scientific principle if that teacher prefers to do so. In other words, any teacher who wants to undermine his or her students' acceptance of a given scientific theory, can inundate them with the "weaknesses" of the theory without reference to the weight the scientific community gives to those purported weaknesses. If the teacher does so to a degree that scientific experts would find misleading, no one can prohibit that, not "the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrator, or [sic] any public elementary or secondary school principal or administrator."

    I wasn't that concerned about this law, until you showed me that, so thanks (though I know that wasn't your intent). Dear science teachers of Tennessee, feel free to poison the minds of your students against any scientific theory you dislike, because no one can stop you and your job is safe.

    I am actually considering a job offer that would take me to Tennessee, so this could matter to my kids.
     
  9. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Yeah, this is an instance of this type of tactic that has become commonplace in the Fox News era: camoflaging bias by reducing it to unequal scrutiny/skepticism. The idea is to avoid doing or saying any particular thing that would clearly mark out the bias - instead, you stick to purely vanilla considerations of "fact" and "evidence" and so on, but you apply a huge amount of such scrutiny to positions you disfavor, and little or none to those you do favor. That way, opponents have to engage in a complicated analysis of your larger patterns of selective skepticism in order to call you out on your bias. And that's difficult, and tends to get lost in the fast-paced news cycle.

    The bright side is that at least creationists are their ilk are having to go to some lengths to disguise and dampen their positions, instead of just openly preaching in class. The downside is that it opens up space for their allies to defend them by pointing to the superficial neutrality of the laws in question, while pointedly ignoring the context and intent.

    At the end of the day, I doubt that the sort of politicized educators that might want to take advantage of this will be able to tread the fine line required of them, however. It's one thing for political campaigns or news organizations to maintain the requisite discipline and tactics, but public schools? Good luck with that.
     
  10. Cavalier Knight of the Opinion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    157

    Right, it would be no different in kind than teaching WWII to a class of history students and spending half the class time focused on the "controversy" over whether or not the Holocaust really occurred. As long as you can find one reasonably credentialed historian who is a Holocaust-denier (and that's easy), all you are doing is "teaching history" with a focus on the "weaknesses" of existing historical scholarship.

    I just hope Tennessee has at least one flat-Earther science teacher who's prepared to teach the controversy over the shape of the globe, as he would also could not be prohibited from doing so.
     
  11. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Well they aren't limited by this law, but find me any state that has a bulleted list of specific things that can be taught.
    Well of course she can teach about the weaknesses in any theory.
    Why does that bother you?
    Most Scientific theories don't have many, but the ones concerning gravity were really interesting, and indeed if I'm not mistaken, the weaknesses of Newton's theory of Gravitation was one of the things that led Einstein to come up with the General Theory of Relativity.

    No, because of the Performance Indicators the Curriculum requires the students to understand. If the teacher is not teaching to the Curriculum, they can in fact be penalized/fired. Remember this ONLY protects teachers who are teaching the material within the Curriculum Framework.

    Really?
    You think that's what this law allows teachers to do?
    My intent was to show you that your concerns weren't justified by the law.
    Apparently I failed.
    So do what you want, but as the Curriculum Framework shows they in fact do teach real science in Tennessee.
     
  12. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Absolutely false.

    This section only protects the teaching of scientific information
     
  13. Cavalier Knight of the Opinion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    157
    Yes, they teach it, but if the teacher spends 20% of class time on evolution (hitiing the points required by the curriculum as fast and as dismissively as he or she possibly can) and then 80% of class time on the "controversies" like the Piltdown Man and other hoaxes and mistakes, students will be led to the conclusion it is not a valid scientific theory.

    Teachers can do this RIGHT NOW, in fact, but what this law says is that they can't be prohibited from doing it and that means they cannot be fired for doing it. That's appalling.
     
  14. Cavalier Knight of the Opinion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    157
    And there is evidence for the Earth being flat...it looks flat. That is scientifically verifiable evidence. It turns out to be an illusion based on the scale of the planet relative to our field of vision, but that is a different matter that the science teacher need not cover in class.

    He can also cover how the moon landings were faked, if that floats your boat better, or that the Earth is the center of the solar system (also a conclusion reachable through observation).

    Tennessee science!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    J/K, that letter is (probably) not from a Tennessee teacher.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2012
  15. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    No they can't.

    The law:
    Piltdown Man is NOT an existing scientific theory.

    NO.

    The bill says nothing about not firing teachers who don't teach to the proficincy levels within the Framework.
     
  16. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
  17. Cavalier Knight of the Opinion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    157
    But the possibility of hoaxes in the fossil record is a weakness of evolution (and false data is an issue for any scientific theory) and there is well documented evidence of several hoaxes in the evolutionary context, Piltdown Man being the most notable.

    It does say, very expressly that no one can prohibit them from teaching the weaknesses of given scientific theories, and if they could be fired for doing so, that would be a de facto prohibition.

    It is possible, one hopes, that they could still be fired if students were unable to explain the theory adequately, but that one can explain a theory doesn't mean one hasn't been tricked into believing the theory itself is incorrect. I can explain many concepts that I believe are incorrect. I happen to know a fair bit about 19th century "Hollow Earth" theories, and can explain them, even though there is no doubt they are wrong. In fact, though, you can still find spurious "scientific evidence" for this crazy idea:

    http://www.hollowearththeory.com/articles/impactCraters.asp
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2012
  18. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    It also says: review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.

    You could NOT make support the claim that spending 80% of your time on these few hoaxes would be "in an objective manner".

    That's why there is in fact a strong reference to the Curriculum Framework in the Bill.

    If you don't teach the Framework adequately, you can get let go for inadequate teaching performance
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Are you a creationist, adoucette?
     
  20. Cavalier Knight of the Opinion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    157
    The thing is there is no objective standard for what is "objective." I'm glad you agree with me that harping on the Piltdown Man and the (relatively few) holes in the fossil record is not objective...but a creationist would disagree with both of us, since they think the whole theory is WRONG. They would think that omitting an extensive discussion of such things is evidence of bias. So who's standards for objectivity do we use? Scientists? That'd be fine by me, but not so much by the bill's sponsors. Bill Dunn, the House sponsor of the bill said that any "objective fact" is fair game, he was not talking about an objective overall presentation (and at least his standard is easier to police).

    And who wrote the model bill that Dunn introduced? The Discovery Institute, the intelligent design pushing organization.

    In my opinion, by leaving it to individual science teachers to introduce weaknesses to novices in an scientifically airtight context like evolution, they have already let the "objectivity" boat sail away. The whole point of the law is to give teachers a freer hand to undermine evolution and climate change science.

    On the plus side, a recent study of the Tennessee science curriculum says the law could help...how? By making it illegal to fire teachers who WANT to teach evolution...because Tennessee school districts sometimes so that.

    http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120415/NEWS0201/304150102/TN-evolution-law-may-change-nothing

    This is the atmosphere of "scientific objectivity" they are working with in Tennessee apparently. I can't believe that I wasn't incensed by this just a day ago. Tennessee science curriculum received a D grade from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute according to that article...and they seem to be striving for an F in actual classroom practice. If I move to TN, I will definitely have to look into private schools.

    You are free to disagree, of course, but in light of the evidence, you come off as incredibly naive.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2012
  21. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Actually, it has managed to bypass it quite cleverly:

    Tennessee has a new law on the books that allows teachers to discuss alternatives to mainstream scientific theories in the classroom, including intelligent design.

    Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam allowed the bill—which easily passed the state's House and Senate—to become law on Tuesday by neither signing nor vetoing it, the Memphis Commercial Appeal reports.

    The new law bars schools and administrators from prohibiting teachers from "helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught." But, as the effort's critics have been quick to point out, the only examples the legislation gives of "controversial" theories are "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."

    The law does not allow teachers to present the alternative theories on their own, as Reuters notes, but they must discuss them if mentioned. Critics of the law dubbed it the "monkey bill," after the 1925 prosecution in Tennessee of John Scopes, a science teacher who broke state law at the time by teaching evolution.

    The law's supporters, including the Knoxville-based Center for Faith and Science International, argue that it promotes critical thinking skills. But opponents, who include the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Tennessee Education Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the National Association of Biology Teachers, argue that the new rules are essentially allowing teachers to depict evolution and global warming as scientifically controversial subjects, when the actual controversy surrounding them comes from the political and religious spheres, not from scientists.


    Seattle based Discovery Institute, who is behind Center for Faith and Science International, are pro-Intelligent Design in schools and have been advocating for it for a while now and they were behind this Bill. And in Tennessee at least, they got their way. Nature magazine explains it quite well if you have issues understanding how teachers in Tennessee can now teach intelligent design in schools and not be breaking the law.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    There is NOTHING in the law that says the teachers "must discuss them if mentioned".
     
  23. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Have you read this thread, James?

    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2929652&postcount=21
     

Share This Page