On Feb 17, 5:11 pm, "
kil...@gmail.com" <
kil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Mike Said:
>
> In my opinion, these main messages should cover:
> > 1) The curricula from various boards or state departments that already
> > emphasise the need for good science literacy, critical thinking, critical
...
> We could probably even do a summary of 'what people think will solve it,
> what are the issues with that, what are some more proactive directions the
> general public can supoprt'? Certainly what Cathy has said about '"The TX
I agree whole-heartedly with Mike that individuals are the key. Even
with a forced curriculum, if the teacher doesn't get it, the kids
won't. In most cases, I don't think the standards themselves are what
needs to be changed; most are more comprehensive than people think.
Your suggestion of a "things to think about" type of paper is a good
idea.
> I would
> certainly like to see our group contribute to publications like the
> Australian Skeptic, Skeptical Inquirer, Skeptic, et al, on these issues.
Yeah. When the big D is off my plate, I will definitely work on that.
> *Thinking Skills Topic*
> About this point I'm wondering if I should contact Martin Bridgstock about
> his experiences teaching a skepticism course and if he can join this group.
> Whilst it is by no way a 'final say', I'd be interested in what he has done
> when lecturing on this topic and how it might be tackled?
Is his course at the secondary level?
> * Pseudoscience in education topic*
> Lipman Brown and I were in strong agreement that parents can and should
> check out schools and be like the parents who stopped Dover just steam
> rolling creationism in.
How about a side trip to Louisiana to talk some sense into that
bunch? ; P
> Which leads to Barb's point about: 'I certainly have some of these. The
> problem, though, is sparking that flame you're trying to avoid - the
> over-reactions of extremists who want laws saying you can't use the word
> "God" in public...'
>
> We can stick a sign on the door saying 'Leave Your Penn Jillette At Home'.
LOL! But I agree with him on a lot of stuff! Also, he may not
tolerate the religious, but passing laws about ANYTHING are probably
not on his list of things to lobby for! Regardless, I get it.
> *
http://tinyurl.com/powerpointskepticparent*
Ugh. I'm sorry, but this turned me off immediately, and I have to talk
about it. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO SKIP DOWN to the next Kylie quote.
She would have been better off sticking with the facts about pregnancy
and early childhood claims (caffeine, co-sleeping, circumcision,
breast-feeding, etc.).
She starts with a definition of skepticism that is just wrong.
Skepticism is not about questioning claims which lack evidence. Claims
that lack evidence are a no-brainer. It's about evaluating the
evidence for claims. There's a big difference. Then she discusses the
decision to become a parent as if it is somehow important to have more
babies because we need to outnumber the faithful. She implies that the
religious decision to forgo birth control is irrational. It's TOTALLY
rational. If you believe that to control birth (or death) is God's job
and birth control is killing an unborn child, it's perfectly rational.
I don't agree with the premises, but the argument is valid.
"Be prepared that skeptical children are not always the best behaved,
and may not be suited for all child care/public school situations.
Private school/homeschool may be necessary (great option for paranoid
libertarian types!)"
WTF?? I can take my kids ANYWHERE. Skepticism has ZIP to do with how
well-behaved children are. Children who have boundaries and know what
to expect in response to their behavior are well-behaved. That has
nothing to do with teaching them to think. I don't teach my children
"respect for evidence over authority". Respect does not mean you have
to believe what a teacher says over what the evidence says and
questioning the message is not disrespecting the messenger.
I don't prepare my children for others telling them they're going to
hell because they won't hear that. My children believe in God... at
the moment. I didn't raise atheists. I'm not telling them what to
think. I'm teaching them HOW to think. Of course they believe in God.
They're children. When they have put enough thought into it, I am
quite certain that both will reject the concept outright. They're
already halfway there.
President Obama's mom was an atheist. SO WHAT?
Okay, sorry about that. Back to regular programming.
> I will say - I think the *Topic - How We Are Fooled* will be a winner and
> I'll let you guys figure out what to do and have fun with! Although I'm
I have a few options for that one that are ready to go:
- Visual Illusions
- Reversed Audio clips & visual examples of the effects of expectation
on perception
- Cognitive biases & reasoning errors
- Change blindness and Selective attention (Wiseman's video at TAM6 is
a good example)
- Probabilities & chance outcomes - I have a great ESP demo in which I
ask students to try to predict which shape or color will appear next
in a series of about 25 trials (Zenar-Card type), then discuss the
expected ranges of scores. This can go along with discussions of
sample-size fallacy, illusory conjunctions, and conjunction errors.
All are interactive in that the audience gets a chance to "test their
skills" at something fun and will do the "ooo" and "aaahhh" thing for
a lot of it.
-Barb