Showing posts with label Science Education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Science Education. Show all posts

Monday, July 20, 2015

AAAS Science Magazine: Best. Email. List. Evah? They've Convinced Me!

Pluto - Geysers?
(see link below)
You can view the individual emails as web pages; if you do so, they're nearly as full of colorful pics as the magazine itself. (IOW, it's very high-quality advertising... and it may well succeed in selling to me at some point.) The pages appear to be persistent, or else they are regenerated when you return to the links later on, and the content is so overwhelming in quantity that I bookmark most items for later reading.

As an example, here are a few items I found interesting among probably a couple hundred others in recently received list messages; the articles are aimed less at scientists than at educated, fascinated nonscientist readers (you have to learn to tolerate the headline writers):


(H/T NTodd, not for any particular item but for making me aware of the list itself and the online mag behind it.)

Sunday, February 16, 2014

Sherlock Holmes Was One Of These, Though Not American

AFP through Yahoo News:

1 in 4 Americans unaware that Earth circles Sun

AFP – Fri, Feb 14, 2014
Source: Copernicus,
De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, 1543
Via Wikipedia
Chicago (AFP) - Americans are enthusiastic about the promise of science but lack basic knowledge of it, with one in four unaware that the Earth revolves around the Sun, said a poll out Friday.

The survey included more than 2,200 people in the United States and was conducted by the National Science Foundation.

Nine questions about physical and biological science were on the quiz, and the average score -- 6.5 correct -- was barely a passing grade.

Just 74 percent of respondents knew that the Earth revolved around the Sun, according to the results released at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Chicago.

Fewer than half (48 percent) knew that human beings evolved from earlier species of animals.

...
I'm pretty sure that sound I just heard was my late science teacher father's ashes churning in his urn...

Heliocentrism (science-based as opposed to myth-based) goes back at least to Nicolaus Copernicus in 1543. Nonscientific speculation on heliocentrism goes back to 4th century BCE and several of the ancient Greeks. So there's not a lot of excuse for a person living in a science-oriented 21st-century society like ours not knowing what revolves around what. Even Sherlock Holmes dismissed the fact not because it wasn't true but because he had no need of it... and we have only Dr. Watson's word for Holmes's ignorance on the subject; I find it implausible myself.

If you are about my age (within, say, ±15 years of my age 65, you lived in what may come to be thought of as America's golden age of science. I am beginning to think perhaps it was merely gold-plated. I can't say that's a comforting thought.

Friday, February 14, 2014

You Say You Want No Evolution, Well, You Know...

Drawing: Capt. James Cook voyage 1768-1771
(scientific, pre-Darwinian)
... you're too late to change that world. An old friend of mine from middle school through college, a fundamentalist Christian who home-schooled his kids, nonetheless taught them that facts cannot be debated. No doubt he and I differed on what establishes an assertion as a "fact." But a Missouri legislator has decided to test that concept in the most aggressive way possible: he has proposed a law that would
... require the school district or charter school to notify the parent or legal guardian of each student enrolled in the district of:
(1) The basic content of the district's or school's evolution instruction to be provided to the student; and
(2) The parent's right to remove the student from any part of the district's or school's evolution instruction.
The late lamented Stephen Jay Gould once presented a touring lecture appearing (among many other places) at Rice University in Houston. The title of the lecture began "The Fact of Evolution..." and concluded something like "as Explained in Darwin's Theory," or something similar. The distinction is absolutely critical to the understanding of science education: some things are facts established beyond a reasonable doubt by physical evidence and/or experiment, on the one hand, and on the other, some things are theories created by human minds, explanations of facts consistent with all known established facts.

For example, "evolution," in the sense of "descent with modification" is such a fact: the fossil record proves to any observer with an unbiased mind that later life forms derived from earlier ones. By contrast, "Darwin's theory of evolution," a very specific explanation of the mechanisms by which the established physical fact of descent with modification took place, is a theory. Theories are debatable; indeed, in a scientific context, theories can even be replaced with better theories more consistent with known facts, including new facts learned over time. Facts, on the other hand, in general are not subject to wholesale replacement.

Occasionally, as with the onset of quantum physics, facts previously established are found to be in error to a degree or in a manner that requires a re-evaluation of their particulars. But the whole of physics did not collapse with the first evidence for quantum mechanics, nor was Newton's work literally replaced by Einstein's, Bohr's etc. Some ID creationists are quick to shout "A-HA! Newton was never right in the first place! No eternal truths there!" Perhaps not, but Newton's work was good enough for humankind to navigate from the Earth to the Moon and back, to place satellites in geosynchronous orbit, etc., even if it took Einstein's work to insert the relativistic corrections to make your GPS work properly.

Such deliberate misconstructions might be merely silly, and one might legitimately simply mock people who insist on them. But in today's America, some of those people have in mind to establish their "higher [religious] truths" in our system of public education, by statutory law. Such people must be stopped.

In America, people are free to establish their own religions according to their own beliefs, however nutsy those beliefs may be. People may even form their own schools within the context of their religion, and teach their own kids all sorts of unsupported or even contrafactual things. But religion is not science, ever, even in the best of cases, and the First Amendment to our Constitution assures us that our government may not establish a religion, and that is exactly what the introduction of religion-based "science" contrary to best available present-day scientific thinking into government-sponsored schools amounts to.

Enough is enough. If the courts will not put a stop to this willful distortion of our kids' science education, the show is over, and we might as well strike the set and close the theater.

Static Pages (About, Quotes, etc.)

No Police Like H•lmes



(removed)