British "teacher" encourages challenging Darwin

[Darth Wong]

Once more: the idea of letting high-school students decide for themselves which science is more valid is idiotic. They are horrendously unqualified to do so, so the debate would take place on the level of populism rather than scientific validity.

The only worthwhile place in the science curriculum for a discussion of ID is not in the discussion of evolution. It is in the discussion of scientific method, where the teacher explains why ID does not qualify as a scientific theory at all. To let high-school students debate evolution vs ID is like putting the monkeys in charge of the zoo. They are there to be trained by people who know better, not to decide for themselves what the training regimen should be. They aren't even there to be educated in logical methods of thought yet. High-school gives you basic skills, not a real education. If you want real education, you have to go to university.

[cadbrowser]

Children are not capable of detecting bullshit

I am going to have to disagree with you brianeyci
. I have two children myself and they are remarkable at detecting bullshit. One is 10 and the other is 13.

I would agree if you put the word Some in front of children.

Question:

Wouldn't that be considered a hastly generalization on children?

[brianeyci]

Now I have to put "some" in front of it now? Somehow, some changes the meaning of it? Please. Nitpicky today aren't we. I notice you cut my sentence in half.

In context I am clearly referring to creationist bullshit, which is filled with rhetorical tricks and designed to influence people with little scientific training.

You know Magus you don't have to state something contradictory to move the goalposts. Keep those goalposts on wheels so you never get nailed down, and you'll do fine, right? Wrong. Admit that debate in the classroom is worthless and be a man. As well, introducing controversy is fucking stupid. High school science classes should be conservative relying on true and tested principles rather than fringe science. Fringe, cutting edge doesn't belong at that level. Not that creationism is even fringe at all, it's not even science, so this "teach the controversy" crap is not going to fly. Creationism was smacked down, intelligent design was smacked down, and now fundamentalists resort to teach the controversy, and it's sad that you can't see through the lie (or maybe you actually believe it and are trying to peddle it, who knows).

[Darth Wong]

Children are not capable of detecting bullshit

I am going to have to disagree with you brianeyci
. I have two children myself and they are remarkable at detecting bullshit. One is 10 and the other is 13.

If you think they can't be conned at that age, you're just naive yourself.

I would agree if you put the word Some in front of children.

Question:

Wouldn't that be considered a hastly generalization on children?

No. Children are far too ignorant to differentiate real science from pseudoscience, never mind judging scientific theories. Even most adults are grossly unqualified to do this. This is like saying that it's a "hasty generalization" to say that kids can't do brain surgery.

[General Zod]

Children are not capable of detecting bullshit

I am going to have to disagree with you brianeyci
. I have two children myself and they are remarkable at detecting bullshit. One is 10 and the other is 13.

I would agree if you put the word Some in front of children.

Question:

Wouldn't that be considered a hastly generalization on children?

I wasn't aware personal anecdotes counted as evidence. 2 children != most children.

[Lord Zentei]

Children are not capable of detecting bullshit

I am going to have to disagree with you brianeyci
. I have two children myself and they are remarkable at detecting bullshit. One is 10 and the other is 13.

I would agree if you put the word Some in front of children.

Question:

Wouldn't that be considered a hastly generalization on children?

It would be a hasty generalization if brianeyci meant the statement to apply to all children. It is certainly true that most children are less able to detect bullshit than adults.

In any case, even smart children would have a difficult time detecting particular kinds of bullshit, particularly as diseminated by a bullshitter that is experienced, like many ID proponents are.

[Darth Wong]

cadbrowser is just going after Brian's carelessly worded statement rather than the basic idea. Obviously, it's possible for children to detect some forms of bullshit. But to argue that they can reliably do so, especially when confronted with a particular form of bullshit which has been carefully refined by skilled and motivated rhetoricians for more than a century, is simply absurd.

[Magus]

Admit that debate in the classroom is worthless and be a man.

Is the debate going to change the scientific community? Of course not.
Are the results of the debate going to be seen as relevant? Of course not.

In these aspects, is the debate worthless? Darn straight.

Is using such a situation to teach the kids the barest essentials of what constitutes "scientific" or "verifiable" theory a bad idea? I'd say not.

As well, introducing controversy is fucking stupid.

High school science classes should be conservative relying on true and tested principles rather than fringe science. Fringe, cutting edge doesn't belong at that level. Not that creationism is even fringe at all, it's not even science, so this "teach the controversy" crap is not going to fly.

Kids are going to be introduced to creationism outside of school. This is inevitable. Smack it down immediately by proving that it doesn't hold up as a theory. We all know creationism isn't really scientific. But the kids don't know that - demonstrate it to them!

[Darth Wong]

Is using such a situation to teach the kids the barest essentials of what constitutes "scientific" or "verifiable" theory a bad idea? I'd say not.

Should we also teach Euclidean geometry using your preferred "debate" format, where kids get to argue with each other instead of the teacher simply telling them?

[Magus]

Is using such a situation to teach the kids the barest essentials of what constitutes "scientific" or "verifiable" theory a bad idea? I'd say not.

Should we also teach Euclidean geometry using your preferred "debate" format, where kids get to argue with each other instead of the teacher simply telling them?

Evolution ideally isn't being taught by this debate - it's already been taught. Introducing creationism is done after the fact for the sole purpose of smacking it down and showing what constitutes good theory and what is rambling bullshit.

To answer your question:

If you have already taught Euclidean geometry, and you wanted to introduce an alternate model by another person, let the kids look at it and discuss for a bit, then show why the Euclidean model is a better representation of reality, then sure. I don't think it's as effective as doing it with evolution vs. creationism ("fundamentalist mathematicians" are a little harder to find than fundamentalist creationists) - so the superiority of the Euclidean model over the other would be smaller and harder to demonstrate.

I'm not suggesting that we have to prove the superiority of everything we teach kids in school... I just think Evolution vs. Creationism is a good spot for a one-time lesson on logical, scientific process.

[Lord Zentei]

Admit that debate in the classroom is worthless and be a man.

Is the debate going to change the scientific community? Of course not.
Are the results of the debate going to be seen as relevant? Of course not.

In these aspects, is the debate worthless? Darn straight.

Will allowing kids to "debate" what constitutes real science risk giving them a distorted idea of what really is scientifically sound, and risk giving them the erronous idea that such public "debates" in general are relevant? Darn straight.

[Magus]

Will allowing kids to "debate" what constitutes real science risk giving them a distorted idea of what really is scientifically sound, and risk giving them the erroneous idea that such public "debates" in general are relevant? Darn straight.

Not necessarily, if the debate is followed up by a "debriefing" in which the teacher explains why the correct things students thought were right and why the wrong things they thought were wrong.

By not accepting the "results" of the debate (but instead backing the good points and refuting the bad) the teacher's not lending the debate any credence, since the students' conclusions aren't given any weight outside of their objective correctness.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Debate is for debate sessions in debate classes. You go to school to learn because of the very fact that the guy in front of the class has spent years learning how to regurgitate this information for an audience. The teacher is knowledgeable on a specific subject. If you're going to start questioning his wisdom, then why go to school? People like that, I find, are often invited to teach the class themselves. They soon back down in all my experiences. The sudden dawning of them not having a clue might have something to do with it.

[Lord Zentei]

Will allowing kids to "debate" what constitutes real science risk giving them a distorted idea of what really is scientifically sound, and risk giving them the erroneous idea that such public "debates" in general are relevant? Darn straight.

Not necessarily, if the debate is followed up by a "debriefing" in which the teacher explains why the correct things students thought were right and why the wrong things they thought were wrong.

By not accepting the "results" of the debate (but instead backing the good points and refuting the bad) the teacher's not lending the debate any credence, since the students' conclusions aren't given any weight outside of their objective correctness.

What a complete fucking waste of time, even if such a debriefing would be successful in dispelling all doubt. Which, incidentally, cannot be guaranteed.

[Surlethe]

Wouldn't that be considered a hastly generalization on children?

No, but it would be a sweeping generalization to conclude that just because (you think) your children can detect bullshit, most children can.

[Darth Servo]

I would agree if you put the word Some in front of children.

How about "most", "nearly all", "vast majority", "99.999999999999%" instead of "some"?

[Kuroneko]

If you have already taught Euclidean geometry, and you wanted to introduce an alternate model by another person, let the kids look at it and discuss for a bit, then show why the Euclidean model is a better representation of reality, then sure.

Which is actually almost impossible to do without involving topics which are a fair bit more advanced that any high school mathematics if the "alternatives" are given a fair chance. I can already imagine how that will work in a high-school debate environment. On one hand, there will be this split hairs over the constituent terms, as geo (earth) and metria (measure), concluding from which that elliptical geometry is in fact best, since we do actually live on a round planet. Then there will be those that will look up bits of physics that are high school geometry students, and conclude that a model involving hyperbolic geometry is superior as a "representation of reality." Parabolic (Euclidean) geometry will be lost in a sea of confusion that's beyond the ability of most high school teachers to untangle without resorting to authorative declarations of fact, much less that of the students.

Once one gets into the nuances of evolution, it becomes quite a bit more complicated than Euclidean geometry. If it's unreasonable for high school students to reliably sort out why the latter is "superior", can they be expected to this for the former? What if, further, we consider the fact that some of the science teachers themselves may have an agenda separate from teaching science?

[RedImperator]

Will allowing kids to "debate" what constitutes real science risk giving them a distorted idea of what really is scientifically sound, and risk giving them the erroneous idea that such public "debates" in general are relevant? Darn straight.

Not necessarily, if the debate is followed up by a "debriefing" in which the teacher explains why the correct things students thought were right and why the wrong things they thought were wrong.

That's going to anger and humiliate the kids who were defending the wrong positions if it was a serious debate, and it's going to convince all of them the whole thing was just a waste of their time. Why in the world would you think that high school students would appreciate being made to conduct a phony debate at the end of which the teacher says who's right and who's wrong based on criteria beyond their control?

By not accepting the "results" of the debate (but instead backing the good points and refuting the bad) the teacher's not lending the debate any credence, since the students' conclusions aren't given any weight outside of their objective correctness.

Then what's the point? You could have accomplished the same thing in less time with fewer hurt feelings if you just sent them to talk.origins and made them write a report about it.

Debate is for debate sessions in debate classes. You go to school to learn because of the very fact that the guy in front of the class has spent years learning how to regurgitate this information for an audience. The teacher is knowledgeable on a specific subject. If you're going to start questioning his wisdom, then why go to school? People like that, I find, are often invited to teach the class themselves. They soon back down in all my experiences. The sudden dawning of them not having a clue might have something to do with it.

To be fair, an in-class debate can be a useful tool outside of debate class. Standing at the front of the room regurgitating information for them to parrot back to you on an exam is a pretty ineffective pedagogy; I used debates because I found they retained and understood the material better if they had to research it themselves and synthesize coherent arguments.

The trick is, however, you need to pick a topic which is either actually controversial and so it's not a disaster if the wrong side wins (like the morality of the Hiroshima bombing), or one that's dead in modern times so that the losing side understands it's just an exercise (like the abolition of slavery). Creationism vs. evolution is a current debate with one side that's totally wrong--either you're setting up half your class to fail, or you're doing more damage than if you'd never brought the subject up at all.

Also, a subject has to be actually debatable by teenagers. History can get complex, but it's all human behavior, and even teenagers can understand human behavior. Point them in the right direction for their research and they'll make reasonable arguments. Evolution gets really hard in a hurry; I can't understand at all at least a third of the material on Talk.Origins and I'm a 25 year old masters graduate with a longtime interest in the subject. A 15 year old in biology class isn't qualified to discuss the subject in enough depth to debate it unless he's some kind of savant.

[brianeyci]

Is the debate going to change the scientific community? Of course not. Are the results of the debate going to be seen as relevant? Of course not.

In these aspects, is the debate worthless? Darn straight.

Is using such a situation to teach the kids the barest essentials of what constitutes "scientific" or "verifiable" theory a bad idea? I'd say not.

Wasssste of time, how many times do I have to tell you that. I like how you cover scientific and verifiable in quotes--my Grade 9 geography teacher's maxim has always held true, when you don't know what you're talking about, cover the word in quotes! Well I call you out on it. Do you know what a debate is? Whoever is right can lose if he's not charismatic enough. Are you going to stop backpedaling and concede that a debate is a waste of time, do you know how annoying people who move the goalposts are? This is you,

"Indeed, I did say "introducing controversial ideas" and "encouraging scientific debate" are commendable."

This is me,

"In a debate, whoever wins is not necessarily who's right but who's more charismatic."

This is you,

"We'll let them debate anyway, but at the end tell the winner UR RONG! If the ID supporters in the class win! wtf teh hax!"

Then me,

"That's not a debate retard, admit you were wrong about that."

Then you,

"Lalalalalala!"

Give it up man, a debate's a terrible idea, you're going back to Plato and Aristotle if you think rhetoric's something that should be taught in science class.

Kids are going to be introduced to creationism outside of school. This is inevitable. Smack it down immediately by proving that it doesn't hold up as a theory. We all know creationism isn't really scientific. But the kids don't know that - demonstrate it to them!

Again waste of time. Do you really buy into this teach the controversy bullshit? There is no controversy within the scientific community about evolution first of all, so your initial lauding of the man wanting to teach the controversy was stupid. Next you continue to ignore that you will plant doubt in high school students because as mentioned by other far more educated posters, high school teachers are not qualified to debate evolution either and will have to resort to appeals to authority, making the students think that science is somehow dogmatic, when it isn't, it just requires a very high level of training to even begin to understand it. Or the teachers themselves might buy into creationism and ID. The students will walk away with the conclusion that creationism and intelligent design is taught in science class, and therefore must be credible, reinforced by the fact that the teacher can't dumb down years worth of understanding to fit in their puny brains which they'll see as a weakness in evolution when it isn't. Why don't you want to teach evolution in religion or history class then dingbat, maybe teaching the controversy there's a good idea .

[Magus]

Well I call you out on it. Do you know what a debate is?

In its most original meaning, a debate is a formal exchange between proponents of two sides of an issue. One person wins. One loses.

More typically, debating in its current common usage is used to mean an analysis of the merits and weaknesses of different stands by any number of people. People debate with themselves. Friends debate an issue, but neither of them is necessarily tied to his position. It's more of a collaborative attempt to understand the logic of a situation and figure out what's right. If you'd like to call this something else, I'll gladly drop "debate" and use the term of your choosing. I settled on debate because it seemed to be a step up in intensity from "discussion."

Whoever is right can lose if he's not charismatic enough. Are you going to stop backpedaling and concede that a debate is a waste of time

If a debate necessitates a winner and a loser, then sure. It's a waste of time. The point is not to divide the class into winners and losers, just to get students to analyze both sides of an issue.

Again waste of time. Do you really buy into this teach the controversy bullshit? There is no controversy within the scientific community about evolution first of all, so your initial lauding of the man wanting to teach the controversy was stupid. Next you continue to ignore that you will plant doubt in high school students because as mentioned by other far more educated posters, high school teachers are not qualified to debate evolution either and will have to resort to appeals to authority, making the students think that science is somehow dogmatic, when it isn't, it just requires a very high level of training to even begin to understand it. Or the teachers themselves might buy into creationism and ID. The students will walk away with the conclusion that creationism and intelligent design is taught in science class, and therefore must be credible, reinforced by the fact that the teacher can't dumb down years worth of understanding to fit in their puny brains which they'll see as a weakness in evolution when it isn't.

What happens when (as it assuredly will) little Bobby raises his hand and says:

"Teacher, this evolution stuff is pretty cool, but what about creationism?"

The teacher can then say:

"That's not science because I say so" (appeal to authority)
"That's not science because the curriculum doesn't cover it" (appeal to authority)
"That's not science because the school board says so" (appeal to authority)
"That's not science because no one in the scientific community thinks so" (appeal to authority)

I suggested "That's not science because it violates the principle of Occam's Razor. It introduces unnecessary components to the model that overly complicate it."

Why don't you want to teach evolution in religion

Assuming it's a public school religion class, it's simply teaching about what people believe. You don't need to prove them wrong or right.

or history class.

Why would you discuss evolution in history class? There's a difference between teaching something and refuting something for the benefit of the kids.

[SirNitram]

"That's not science because no one in the scientific community thinks so" (appeal to authority)

Ladies and gentlemen, what happens when a total moron thinks he knows what fallacies are.

Appeal To Authority is technically Appeal To Irrelevent Authority. The scientific community is entirely relevent, far moreso than a bunch of Highschoolers.

Hey, fucknuggets. Does your 'Go ahead, debate it!' stance apply to actual competing theories, or just non-theories chanted by fundies? Because you know, there's actual points of contention in science these days. But not Evolution.

[Magus]

Ladies and gentlemen, what happens when a total moron thinks he knows what fallacies are.

Appeal To Authority is technically Appeal To Irrelevent Authority. The scientific community is entirely relevent, far moreso than a bunch of Highschoolers.

Why appeal to any authority when you can explain how Creationism violates Occam's Razor?

[Surlethe]

Why appeal to any authority when you can explain how Creationism violates Occam's Razor?

Way to entirely miss his point; you called appealing to the relevant authority of the scientific community an appeal to authority fallacy, and he called you out on it.

[SirNitram]

Ladies and gentlemen, what happens when a total moron thinks he knows what fallacies are.

Appeal To Authority is technically Appeal To Irrelevent Authority. The scientific community is entirely relevent, far moreso than a bunch of Highschoolers.

Why appeal to any authority when you can explain how Creationism violates Occam's Razor?

I'm correcting your completely wrong usage of the Appeal To Authority fallacy, child. I see you very cowardly snippedout where I challenged you to apply your ridiculous standards to actual competing theories. What's the matter?

[darthbob88]

Why appeal to any authority when you can explain how Creationism violates Occam's Razor?

Way to entirely miss his point; you called appealing to the relevant authority of the scientific community an appeal to authority fallacy, and he called you out on it.

If I may suggest, appealing to any authority in an educational setting may constitute a minor fallacy for "political" reasons, as it is equivalent to saying, "I don't know why this is so, but people with lotsa impressive letters after their names say it is so, so I'll take their word for it." A canny student could take this as a sign of a teacher's fallibility, and reply that Kent Hovind(?) has lotsa impressive letters after his name, and he says ID is so. From there it could devolve into "It's so because I/they say it is so" or it might become simply "Preacher says this ain't so, an' I trust him more'n I trust teachers." Either way, class is over.