Teaching TOE
UC
abysmal. I therefore believe that teaching TOE is probably not a good
idea below university level. There are too many subtleties for high
schoolers to grasp. Besides, the state of knowledge about biology and
genetics keeps advancing so rapidly that textbooks have an impossible
task of keeping up.
This is a "devil's advocate" thread.
MS
bpuharic
actually it should be just the reverse. biology is already taught.
evolution is central to biology so it should be emphasized. there's no
reason to dumb something down even more than it is now.
and why choose evoluiton? why not elimiinate math or science all
together? that way you don't have to worry about kids doing poorly. if
nothing's expected of them, they can't fail
just a devils advocate thread..
All-seeing-I
I agree.
Boikat
But you're an idiot, so of course you would. A good basic
understanding of biology and evolution in the grade and highshcool
levels is what is needed. Besides, shit for brains, waiting for
college level to teach biological evolution would mean extra classes
and more tuition burden on the student. I know that does not bother
you, since you advocate stupidity to begin with, and the fewer people
that can afford college, the better. Especially when it comes to
"Evil Science".
Boikat
Garamond Lethe
I now have before me the devil's "ineffective assistance of counsel" motion
asking for a mistrail. So ordered.
>
> MS
>
ed wolf
When I look into my (German) textbook from almost 40 years back,
I do not see where it went wrong with teaching evolution. The basic
facts where clear then as they are now. Do you have any example
of teaching evolution in the last 40 years that is against today`s
knowledge? Lots of genetics, evolution of groups, the "egoistic
gene" debate all are not essential for understanding evolution
as a principle of life. Easy to understand, and to explain.
Just like Newtons laws of motion. Where is your problem?
ed
bpuharic
of course you do. in afghanistan, the taliban don't want girls even to
be taught.
for the same reason you oppose evolution: religion
Ye Old One
But then you never had an education.
--
Bob.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid but you're abusing the privilege.
John Harshman
UC
The problem is that some things are subject to revision. Knowledge of
genetics for instance. I just finished Survival of the Sickest and it
was really amazing.
UC
You haven't addressed the quality of teaching..
VoiceOfReason
I seem to remember the kids in my junior high and high school
understanding the concepts quite well.
"Keep 'em stupid" is not a particularly good education approach,
especially not if we want to compete in a global economy. Rather than
short-changing the students, fix the education system where it needs
it.
UC
But teachers are unbelievably stupid.
High school teachers teach what's in the books, and books can be wrong.
chris thompson
What has been revised about the most basic ideas of evolution? In
particular, natural selection? No one advocates teaching advanced
genetics to 7th graders, but my daughter's 4th grade class got the
basics of NS just fine with a really simple experiment. Tell a kid
she is to pretend she is a hungry bird looking for a bug to eat. Have
her stand in front of a table and close her eyes. Lay out a bunch of
paper bugs on the table in front of her- some brightly colored and
some the same color as the table. Have her open her eyes and grab as
many bugs as she can in 5 seconds. Which colors are left on the table
when she's done?
Now ASI, spinny and nashton probably wouldn't get the idea. But 25 4th
graders did.
Chris
All-seeing-I
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
You did not tell us which bugs she took.
John Harshman
poor the teaching may be, creationists don't want it taught.
John Harshman
science. Or history. Are you sure?
John Harshman
nothing should be taught in school. Are you suggesting that primary and
secondary schools be abolished?
Desertphile
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It seems to me that the quality of teaching in this country (USA) is
> abysmal.
Yeah, this "opinion" is supported by the facts.
> I therefore believe that teaching TOE is probably not a good
> idea below university level.
What about the many millions of USA citizens who cannot afford a
higher education?!
Good anal-bleeding fuckings gods!
> There are too many subtleties for high schoolers to grasp.
The Theory of Education is simple for anyone of average or higher
intelligence to grasp in just a week or two.
> Besides, the state of knowledge about biology and
> genetics keeps advancing so rapidly that textbooks
> have an impossible task of keeping up.
Ah, so educators should just give up?
The basics of how evoltion works has been known for 150 years.
> This is a "devil's advocate" thread.
It's an asinine and rediculous proposal.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
Yes, but then, your brain is made of marshmellows.
heekster
Quod erat demonstrandum.
Congratulations. You are dumber than 25 fourth graders.
Desertphile
> > I agree.
It also means that only the wealthy and the upper-class citizens
will be education, which works to keep the middle-class and the
poor oppressed, ignorant, superstitious, and ripe for
indoctrination into occult superstition (religion).
USA students need more time in schools, more funding, more
teachers, and more graduation requirements: they're lazy, not
stupid.
Desertphile
> > > I agree.
Your solution is to stop teaching. Brilliant!
Desertphile
Ah, so because Dr. Moalem received an education regarding
evolutionary theory in high school, nobody else should?
Are you pretending to be this stupid?
Desertphile
Therefore, teachers should not teach science?
Nut.
> High school teachers teach what's in the books, and books
> can be wrong.
So, give an example from a science textbook used in a public
school that has something wrong in it. Thank you in advance.
Augray
wrote in <b7bmg5pfflf7roc9u...@4ax.com> :
>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:18:32 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
><ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 23, 6:09�pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
[snip]
>>> What has been revised about the most basic ideas of evolution? In
>>> particular, natural selection? No one advocates teaching advanced
>>> genetics to 7th graders, but my daughter's 4th grade class got the
>>> basics of NS just fine with a really simple experiment. �Tell a kid
>>> she is to pretend she is a hungry bird looking for a bug to eat. Have
>>> her stand in front of a table and close her eyes. Lay out a bunch of
>>> paper bugs on the table in front of her- some brightly colored and
>>> some the same color as the table. Have her open her eyes and grab as
>>> many bugs as she can in 5 seconds. Which colors are left on the table
>>> when she's done?
>>>
>>> Now ASI, spinny and nashton probably wouldn't get the idea. But 25 4th
>>> graders did.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>
>>You did not tell us which bugs she took.
>
>Quod erat demonstrandum.
>
>Congratulations. You are dumber than 25 fourth graders.
Yep. Totally clueless.
guscubed
wrote:
A friend of mine at university had elected to become a general science
teacher for primary school kids and I remember he had an assignment
where he had to try and explain some aspect of evolution to primary
school kids, especially genetic variation. His approach was to
separate them into pairs and get the first pair to try and copy a
simple structure he'd built from lego(s), they then passed their copy
to the next pair and so on, playing lego(s)-telephone. they then
compared the original to the last 'generation' - not as elegant as
your selection demonstration buit still pretty good I thought.
Walter Bushell
heekster <heek...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
The 4th graders did the experiment and had the results in hand.
You set him a *much* harder question as it needs relatively abstract
reasoning.
Junior High level, I'd estimate.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Walter Bushell
<uranium-c0bafb06-0dff-...@v37g2000vbb.googlegroups.c
om>,
UC <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> But teachers are unbelievably stupid.
>
> High school teachers teach what's in the books, and books can be wrong.
It's a lot more work to teach against the book, and what do you do when
a student gives the book answer rather than the one you taught? The book
may be more up to date than the teacher's education, and continuing
education of teacher's probably consists of classes in methods of
education.
All-Seeing-I
> In article <b7bmg5pfflf7roc9ujs7evosckukkgh...@4ax.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm dumb because YOU GUYS cannot explain evolution?
HAHAHAHA!!
Boikat
It's been explained to you several times. You're not simply "dumb",
but you are also willfully ignorant.
>
> HAHAHAHA!!-
There is a reason they call idiots "chuckle heads".
Boikat
Ye Old One
--
Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.
VoiceOfReason
Not in our local school district. Most are excellent teachers. Where
the hell do you live??
> High school teachers teach what's in the books, and books can be wrong.
So you advocate no teaching at all? That's a prescription for
ignorance.
UC
wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:28:42 -0800 (PST), UC
>
> > On Nov 23, 5:49 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > All-seeing-I wrote:
> > > > On Nov 23, 3:12 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >> It seems to me that the quality of teaching in this country (USA) is
> > > >> abysmal. I therefore believe that teaching TOE is probably not a good
> > > >> idea below university level. There are too many subtleties for high
> > > >> schoolers to grasp. Besides, the state of knowledge about biology and
> > > >> genetics keeps advancing so rapidly that textbooks have an impossible
> > > >> task of keeping up.
> > > > I agree.
> > > And that should be a clue for UC.
> > You haven't addressed the quality of teaching..
>
> Your solution is to stop teaching. Brilliant!
>
> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
No, I propose that ToE be taught to the teachers first. They don't
have a clue.
UC
Hey guys, I'm not "advocating" anything. This is a "devil's advocate"
thread!
How stupid can you be?
Steven L.
>>
>>> It seems to me that the quality of teaching in this country (USA) is
>>> abysmal. I therefore believe that teaching TOE is probably not a good
>>> idea below university level. There are too many subtleties for high
>>> schoolers to grasp. Besides, the state of knowledge about biology and
>>> genetics keeps advancing so rapidly that textbooks have an impossible
>>> task of keeping up.
>>> This is a "devil's advocate" thread.
>> When I look into my (German) textbook from almost 40 years back,
>> I do not see where it went wrong with teaching evolution. The basic
>> facts where clear then as they are now. Do you have any example
>> of teaching evolution in the last 40 years that is against today`s
>> knowledge? Lots of genetics, evolution of groups, the "egoistic
>> gene" debate all are not essential for understanding evolution
>> as a principle of life. Easy to understand, and to explain.
>> Just like Newtons laws of motion. Where is your problem?
>> ed
>
> The problem is that some things are subject to revision. Knowledge of
> genetics for instance.
A lot of other fields, taught in high school or even elementary school,
have undergone major revision since I was a kid in the 1960s:
Astronomy and cosmology
Electronics
Computer science
These fields kept expanding as new tools (space exploration,
microprocessors, personal computers) became available. That didn't mean
they shouldn't be taught till college.
The purpose of education is to teach kids HOW to learn, not stuff facts
into their memories.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
VoiceOfReason
Ipso facto ergo bozo.
John Harshman
teach evolution below university level. Do you remember doing that? If
you forget, it's still visible above.
UC
I floated the idea as a "devil's advocate". I want to see what people
think. It does not represent my own opinion.
John Harshman
yours, was silly and pointless. Was that the result you were looking for?
Frank J
> On Nov 23, 3:12 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > It seems to me that the quality of teaching in this country (USA) is
> > abysmal. I therefore believe that teaching TOE is probably not a good
> > idea below university level. There are too many subtleties for high
> > schoolers to grasp. Besides, the state of knowledge about biology and
> > genetics keeps advancing so rapidly that textbooks have an impossible
> > task of keeping up.
>
> I agree.
Then take it up with the DI, who wants high school students to be
taught evolution - and *none* of the failed alternatives including
their own ID. Of course they only want to teach evolution so that they
can promote unreasonable doubt. Which is the same reason they do not
want to teach ID or the mutually contradictory creationisms that they
"distance themselves" from. They know how much easier it is to promote
*reasonable* doubt of those failed "theories."
I think they should start teaching evolution no later than 1st grade.
By 8th grade students all ought to know that the Cambrian period began
~540 MY ago and life was mostly microscopic without easily
fossilizable parts for ~3 billion years prior.
UC
No, John, I wanted to express frustration at the current political and
educational climate. Evolution is not being taught properly, and for
that reason some creationists have been able to make inroads
politically. Too many people who accept evolution do not even
understand it, let alone have the capacity to teach it.
John Harshman
suggestions that if implemented would make the situation worse?
Tim Norfolk
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually, I had a similar idea some years ago for mathematics. Since
our students are coming in worse prepared every year, I suggested that
we not teach them mathematics, unless they really wanted to. Then, we
cheat them blind while making change and signing contracts.
UC
Well, teaching it wrong is worse than not teaching it at all. I'm that
fed up.
John Harshman
you're so fed up, suggest some kind of improvement.
UC
If the ToE is going to be taught, I think it's not necessarily a good
idea to tie it too closely to biology classes, except perhaps as a
precursor. If you get into detailed examples, there sometimes can be
problems. It has been suggested that some of the "feathers" found on
dinosaurs are not really feathers, so you may have to be careful what
you assert. Today's "fact" can be tomorrow's red faced retraction. The
trouble is that over-simplification is the norm. The sequence with Eos
(horses) is one. All these "horses" did not form a cute little chain
of succession as is usually presented.
"While we are fortunate to have such detailed examples of past
evolutionary transitions, the presentation of the evolution of horses
proceeding in a straight line from small, four-toed Eohippus to the
extant Equus has sometimes done more harm than good."
LT
>
> "While we are fortunate to have such detailed examples of past
> evolutionary transitions, the presentation of the evolution of horses
> proceeding in a straight line from small, four-toed Eohippus to the
>
> - Show quoted text -
Personally I think the basics of evolution are quite straightforward,
and easily visualized. It even makes sense, and it would be easy to
teach it to very young children. I don't think the problem is in how
it is taught, I think it is in how much it is taught. There isn't
enough time spent on it in biology directly. I remember in high school
and junior high school that evolution was taught very little, except
to tie it in with other topics.
Since the education system is in such dire straits, the ONLY way to
improve it is to invest more in it, and challenge students more in it.
Not just give up on them. That sets up the next generation to be a
more ineffective one.
LT
LT
>
> - Show quoted text -
The problem's not in who's pitching, but who's catching, imbecile.
LT
LT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Damn, Chris, you couldn't not possibly have called that one better.
LT
UC
I agree, but details are as always, subject to change. If you make a
mistake, the creationists may attack it and that sows confusion in the
minds of students.
> It even makes sense, and it would be easy to
> teach it to very young children. I don't think the problem is in how
> it is taught, I think it is in how much it is taught. There isn't
> enough time spent on it in biology directly. I remember in high school
> and junior high school that evolution was taught very little, except
> to tie it in with other topics.
I think the thing to do is teach it in history of science classes.
> Since the education system is in such dire straits, the ONLY way to
> improve it is to invest more in it, and challenge students more in it.
> Not just give up on them. That sets up the next generation to be a
> more ineffective one.
Money isn't the answer. It's getting rid of teacher's unions and
incompetence.
> LT
John Harshman
I am so glad you have no influence over school curricula. Evolution
should be embedded deeply in every biology class.
> If you get into detailed examples, there sometimes can be
> problems. It has been suggested that some of the "feathers" found on
> dinosaurs are not really feathers, so you may have to be careful what
> you assert.
It's also been suggested that guinea pigs aren't rodents, so I suppose
we shouldn't teach about rodents in biology classes. That was a very
silly objection.
> Today's "fact" can be tomorrow's red faced retraction. The
> trouble is that over-simplification is the norm. The sequence with Eos
> (horses) is one. All these "horses" did not form a cute little chain
> of succession as is usually presented.
What do you mean "usually"?
> http://laelaps.wordpress.com/2007/09/17/beating-fossil-horses-creationists-take-on-an-icon-of-evolution/
>
> "While we are fortunate to have such detailed examples of past
> evolutionary transitions, the presentation of the evolution of horses
> proceeding in a straight line from small, four-toed Eohippus to the
> extant Equus has sometimes done more harm than good."
You will note that the article you link is not a critique of poor
teaching, but of creationist distortions.
I'll admit to being puzzled. First you say evolution shouldn't be
taught, then you say you didn't mean that, and then you say evolution
shouldn't be taught (or if it is, not very much). Could you settle down
to some concrete position? You're giving me whiplash.
UC
>
> > "While we are fortunate to have such detailed examples of past
> > evolutionary transitions, the presentation of the evolution of horses
> > proceeding in a straight line from small, four-toed Eohippus to the
> > extant Equus has sometimes done more harm than good."
>
> You will note that the article you link is not a critique of poor
> teaching, but of creationist distortions.
>
> I'll admit to being puzzled. First you say evolution shouldn't be
> taught, then you say you didn't mean that, and then you say evolution
> shouldn't be taught (or if it is, not very much). Could you settle down
> to some concrete position? You're giving me whiplash.
"I" am advocating nothing. "My thread" is proposing some radical
improvements in teaching ToE.
There are distinct issues:
1) Darwin's books as historical events
2) Darwin's theories' acceptance as historical events
3) Problems with Darwin's lack of knowledge of genetics
4) Mendel's discoveries
5) The modern synthesis
etc.
What do you teach where? Some of this is historically interesting but
not pertinent.
How much history of science and history of biology do you teach in a
biology class?
I do think a general "history of science" class belongs in high school
curricula before science classes are taught.
Tim Norfolk
>
> - Show quoted text -
How about really teaching what science is, first?
UC
>
> > "I" am advocating nothing. "My thread" is proposing some radical
> > improvements in teaching ToE.
>
> > There are distinct issues:
>
> > 1) Darwin's books as historical events
> > 2) Darwin's theories' acceptance as historical events
> > 3) Problems with Darwin's lack of knowledge of genetics
> > 4) Mendel's discoveries
> > 5) The modern synthesis
>
> > etc.
>
> > What do you teach where? Some of this is historically interesting but
> > not pertinent.
>
> > How much history of science and history of biology do you teach in a
> > biology class?
>
> > I do think a general "history of science" class belongs in high school
> > curricula before science classes are taught.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> How about really teaching what science is, first?
That would be grand!
Augray
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<uranium-984a59f8-9660-...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
:
[snip]
>If the ToE is going to be taught, I think it's not necessarily a good
>idea to tie it too closely to biology classes, except perhaps as a
>precursor. If you get into detailed examples, there sometimes can be
>problems. It has been suggested that some of the "feathers" found on
>dinosaurs are not really feathers, so you may have to be careful what
>you assert.
So if someone suggests something that goes against the consensus, it
shouldn't be taught? In the case of those who suggest that dinosaur
feathers aren't really feathers, they haven't presented evidence for
their claim that withstands more than a few minutes of examination.
>Today's "fact" can be tomorrow's red faced retraction.
You mean like the idea that birds aren't descended from dinosaurs?
>The
>trouble is that over-simplification is the norm.
Some topics aren't simple.
[snip]
UC
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:46:16 -0800 (PST), UC
> <uranium-984a59f8-9660-4575-9dad-55c17e786...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
> :
>
> [snip]
>
> >If the ToE is going to be taught, I think it's not necessarily a good
> >idea to tie it too closely to biology classes, except perhaps as a
> >precursor. If you get into detailed examples, there sometimes can be
> >problems. It has been suggested that some of the "feathers" found on
> >dinosaurs are not really feathers, so you may have to be careful what
> >you assert.
>
> So if someone suggests something that goes against the consensus, it
> shouldn't be taught?
Not at all. From what I understand, those Chinese feathered dinosaurs
may have been misread.
> In the case of those who suggest that dinosaur
> feathers aren't really feathers, they haven't presented evidence for
> their claim that withstands more than a few minutes of examination.
>
> >Today's "fact" can be tomorrow's red faced retraction.
>
> You mean like the idea that birds aren't descended from dinosaurs?
No comment. Aves are descended from Dinosauria. "Birds" aren't
descended from anything. "Bird" is not a biologically useful term any
more than "tree" is.
>
> >The
> >trouble is that over-simplification is the norm.
>
> Some topics aren't simple.
That's MY point.
>
> [snip]
Augray
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<uranium-dad07068-a5de-...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
:
>On Nov 25, 5:26 pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:46:16 -0800 (PST), UC
>> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> <uranium-984a59f8-9660-4575-9dad-55c17e786...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
>> :
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >If the ToE is going to be taught, I think it's not necessarily a good
>> >idea to tie it too closely to biology classes, except perhaps as a
>> >precursor. If you get into detailed examples, there sometimes can be
>> >problems. It has been suggested that some of the "feathers" found on
>> >dinosaurs are not really feathers, so you may have to be careful what
>> >you assert.
>>
>> So if someone suggests something that goes against the consensus, it
>> shouldn't be taught?
>
>Not at all.
So it would be OK to mention dinosaur feathers?
>From what I understand, those Chinese feathered dinosaurs
>may have been misread.
And what is that claim based on?
>> In the case of those who suggest that dinosaur
>> feathers aren't really feathers, they haven't presented evidence for
>> their claim that withstands more than a few minutes of examination.
>>
>> >Today's "fact" can be tomorrow's red faced retraction.
>>
>> You mean like the idea that birds aren't descended from dinosaurs?
>
>No comment.
And yet, you comment anyway:
>Aves are descended from Dinosauria. "Birds" aren't
>descended from anything.
Birds just poofed into existence then? In the past you've a least
allowed that "the ancestors of cows were 'fish'".
>"Bird" is not a biologically useful term any
>more than "tree" is.
But apparently terms like "whale", "fish", "dolphin", "sea lion",
"seal", "walrus", "manatee", "otter", "beaver", and "hippo" *are*
biologically useful terms.
>> >The
>> >trouble is that over-simplification is the norm.
>>
>> Some topics aren't simple.
>
>That's MY point.
So we shouldn't strain the little ones' brains with topics that aren't
simple? How do you judge whether a topic is simple?
>> [snip]
UC
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:43:52 -0800 (PST), UC
> <uranium-dad07068-a5de-4241-969c-c7883879b...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
Over-simplification is always a risk.
UC
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:43:52 -0800 (PST), UC
> <uranium-dad07068-a5de-4241-969c-c7883879b...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
They're not intended to be used the same way as Linnean terms. I put
"birds" in quotes for a reason.
Augray
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<uranium-265b6401-1fa6-...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>
:
And how does one recognize over-simplification?
Augray
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<uranium-6e9fc500-5b68-...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
:
But you use them like they are.
>I put
>"birds" in quotes for a reason.
A very very silly reason. It leads to absurdities like "'Birds' aren't
descended from anything."
John Harshman
> On Nov 25, 5:26 pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:46:16 -0800 (PST), UC
>> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> <uranium-984a59f8-9660-4575-9dad-55c17e786...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
>> :
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> If the ToE is going to be taught, I think it's not necessarily a good
>>> idea to tie it too closely to biology classes, except perhaps as a
>>> precursor. If you get into detailed examples, there sometimes can be
>>> problems. It has been suggested that some of the "feathers" found on
>>> dinosaurs are not really feathers, so you may have to be careful what
>>> you assert.
>> So if someone suggests something that goes against the consensus, it
>> shouldn't be taught?
>
> Not at all. From what I understand, those Chinese feathered dinosaurs
> may have been misread.
What you understand has generally been found to be faulty and based on
nothing. But in this case perhaps there's an exception; what is your
understanding based on?
>> In the case of those who suggest that dinosaur
>> feathers aren't really feathers, they haven't presented evidence for
>> their claim that withstands more than a few minutes of examination.
>>
>>> Today's "fact" can be tomorrow's red faced retraction.
>> You mean like the idea that birds aren't descended from dinosaurs?
>
> No comment. Aves are descended from Dinosauria. "Birds" aren't
> descended from anything. "Bird" is not a biologically useful term any
> more than "tree" is.
Forget the semantic games and answer the question.
>>> The
>>> trouble is that over-simplification is the norm.
>> Some topics aren't simple.
>
> That's MY point.
I doubt it.
John Harshman
No it isn't. It's proposing not teaching ToE at all, or teaching it
completely outside of biology classes. That isn't an improvement.
> There are distinct issues:
>
> 1) Darwin's books as historical events
> 2) Darwin's theories' acceptance as historical events
> 3) Problems with Darwin's lack of knowledge of genetics
> 4) Mendel's discoveries
> 5) The modern synthesis
>
> etc.
>
> What do you teach where? Some of this is historically interesting but
> not pertinent.
So why bring it up?
> How much history of science and history of biology do you teach in a
> biology class?
>
> I do think a general "history of science" class belongs in high school
> curricula before science classes are taught.
Your story keeps changing. I suppose a jello defense keeps you from
being nailed to the wall? You run away from every challenge, which just
gets you deeper into trouble. Your ideas have morphed from not teaching
evolution to teaching it only in a history of science class to teaching
the history of science class first, followed apparently by teaching
evolutionary biology. I think even the last is ridiculous. Teaching
history of science without any education on the science you're teaching
the history of? That would teach nothing. Nor would it improve the
teaching of evolution in any way. The way to teach evolution is to embed
it into every feature of biology teaching, from the beginning, starting
in grade school.
I will point out that your main complaint, that teachers are
incompetent, would be entirely unaffected by your sweeping
reorganization of curriculum.
Ernest Major
<uranium-6e9fc500-5b68-...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.co
m>, UC <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> writes
You appear to have a problem with consistency. In another thread you've
been trying to use vernacular terms as if they apply to clades, in the
teeth of people telling you that those particular terms are not suitable
for such use.
But when it comes to a term that can be identified with a clade, such as
bird (or whale, otter, beaver, hippo, walrus, manatee, sea lion) you
turn round and reject such use.
>>
>> >> >The
>> >> >trouble is that over-simplification is the norm.
>>
>> >> Some topics aren't simple.
>>
>> >That's MY point.
>>
>> So we shouldn't strain the little ones' brains with topics that aren't
>> simple? How do you judge whether a topic is simple?
>>
>> >> [snip]
>
--
alias Ernest Major
LT
Yes, that's their MO no question. However, if we remove the teaching
of it at any level, then the children are even less equipped with real
facts to combat the crap they hear at home or at church.
> > It even makes sense, and it would be easy to
> > teach it to very young children. I don't think the problem is in how
> > it is taught, I think it is in how much it is taught. There isn't
> > enough time spent on it in biology directly. I remember in high school
> > and junior high school that evolution was taught very little, except
> > to tie it in with other topics.
>
> I think the thing to do is teach it in history of science classes.
You mean teach evolution in the history of science classes? That would
seem to imply that evolution is only part of science's history, like a
relic, when in fact it's even more important, useful, applicable and
supported now than it has ever been.
> > Since the education system is in such dire straits, the ONLY way to
> > improve it is to invest more in it, and challenge students more in it.
> > Not just give up on them. That sets up the next generation to be a
> > more ineffective one.
>
> Money isn't the answer. It's getting rid of teacher's unions and
> incompetence.
Well, no not money alone. Unions can often be problematic too, but I
think getting rid of them entirely might be throwing the baby out with
the bathwater. Incompetence I'd also agree is a problem.
> > LT
LT
UC
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:41:20 -0800 (PST), UC
> <uranium-6e9fc500-5b68-416c-989d-ba560dc03...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
Are "trees" descended from anything?
UC
So? Every stage in the history of science was useful, and some remain
useful. I don't see the problem. I think it's helpful for students to
see things as historical developments.
Tim Norfolk
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you are talking about school teachers, I could agree. However, the
system is set up in such a way that 'qualified' teachers can be
assigned to any material. Hence, in a local school district, we have
English and Kindergarten teachers being assigned to 10th-grade
Geometry courses, since their is a shortage of Math teachers, and the
available teachers have seniority. Is it their fault that they are
incompetent at it?
UC
>
> > > I think the thing to do is teach it in history of science classes.
>
> > You mean teach evolution in the history of science classes? That would
> > seem to imply that evolution is only part of science's history, like a
> > relic, when in fact it's even more important, useful, applicable and
> > supported now than it has ever been.
>
> > > > Since the education system is in such dire straits, the ONLY way to
> > > > improve it is to invest more in it, and challenge students more in it.
> > > > Not just give up on them. That sets up the next generation to be a
> > > > more ineffective one.
>
> > > Money isn't the answer. It's getting rid of teacher's unions and
> > > incompetence.
>
> > Well, no not money alone. Unions can often be problematic too, but I
> > think getting rid of them entirely might be throwing the baby out with
> > the bathwater. Incompetence I'd also agree is a problem.
>
> > > > LT
>
> > LT- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> If you are talking about school teachers, I could agree. However, the
> system is set up in such a way that 'qualified' teachers can be
> assigned to any material. Hence, in a local school district, we have
> English and Kindergarten teachers being assigned to 10th-grade
> available teachers have seniority. Is it their fault that they are
> incompetent at it?
No, but it is infuriating.
Augray
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<uranium-fd1c21d1-0a2e-...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
:
Yes. Or are they "poofed" into existence as well?
LT
Certainly not, no. Incompetence is a problem, and you've illustrated a
key reason why. It's not about fault, but solving the incompetence
problem is vital. Teaching as a profession, particularly for those
courses we are short of teachers on, should be more attractive -
that's largely a money issue.
LT
LT
Let me rephrase. Do you mean that we should *only* teach evolution in
the history of science classes until university? I accept that the
history of science is a very important aspect of it, no question. So I
think increasing its teaching in that way is a benefit, but removing
evolution from science class itself (a separate issue) is a
categorical mistake. It should be increased, and substantially.
*snip*
LT
Tim Norfolk
In my area, many teachers earn more than the average pay of all
professors at my university. In Britain, they tried financial
incentives for math and science teachers. It didn't work well, partly
because those with real talent tried to go further e.g. to a Ph.D.,
and partly because those with modest ability were being offered even
higher-paid jobs in industry. I contend, with some good statistical
evidence, that the abiltiy with mathematics at all is genetic, and
rare (say 10% of the population).
UC
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 06:25:50 -0800 (PST), UC
> <uranium-fd1c21d1-0a2e-42be-9ad4-113b8f841...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
LOL. You don't get it. "Trees" is not a class.
UC
I favor an historical approach to teaching almost everything. We don't
know everything, and we are historically still just 150 years from C.
Darwin. Teaching anything (photography, art, philosophy, music,
whatever) in its historical development is much better way to go.
Tim Norfolk
>
> - Show quoted text -
We do that on mathematics, more or less. Except for the educational
theorists who claim that we can teach 'higher level thinking' without
a good grasp of the basics.
UC
(Snippedty do-dah)
>
> > > > So? Every stage in the history of science was useful, and some remain
> > > > useful. I don't see the problem. I think it's helpful for students to
> > > > see things as historical developments.
>
> > > Let me rephrase. Do you mean that we should *only* teach evolution in
> > > the history of science classes until university? I accept that the
> > > history of science is a very important aspect of it, no question. So I
> > > think increasing its teaching in that way is a benefit, but removing
> > > evolution from science class itself (a separate issue) is a
> > > categorical mistake. It should be increased, and substantially.
>
> > > *snip*
>
> > > LT
>
> > I favor an historical approach to teaching almost everything. We don't
> > know everything, and we are historically still just 150 years from C.
> > Darwin. Teaching anything (photography, art, philosophy, music,
> > whatever) in its historical development is much better way to go.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> We do that on mathematics, more or less. Except for the educational
> theorists who claim that we can teach 'higher level thinking' without
> a good grasp of the basics.
Right. I find it much easier to learn, myself, when I am exposed to
the historical developments that led to the current state of
affairs...
MS
Burkhard
numerals, I suppose? I don't think that "early" equates "more basic" or
"less complex" It seems to me that in Math in particular, the simpler
solutions to a mathematical problem came later than the more complicated
ones.
Tim Norfolk
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes and no. I have, as a matter of interest, given operations on Roman
numerals as computer programming exercises. I do throw in the history
of the development of the various numbers systems in several courses.
Augray
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<uranium-69702ac7-10e7-...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
:
No, you're the one who doesn't get it: Saying that "trees aren't
descended from anything" is nonsensical. If that's your idea of
teaching, we're better off without it.
Robert Grumbine
[major trim to get down to the part that attracted my eye and my
renamed thread]
> I contend, with some good statistical
> evidence, that the abiltiy with mathematics at all is genetic, and
> rare (say 10% of the population).
What do you mean in saying 'ability with mathematics at all'?
If you mean, say, sufficient ability to do calculus ok, then I might
agree. If you mean, say, elementary algebra, I'll disagree based on
observing an unspecial school district (not wealthy, no commitment
to learning for its own sake, etc.) getting about 95% of its students
to the point of solving linear equations without great trauma.
--
Robert Grumbine http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ Science blog
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Paul J Gans
>In article <207f4d14-6aa1-4388...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Tim Norfolk wrote:
>[major trim to get down to the part that attracted my eye and my
>renamed thread]
>
>> I contend, with some good statistical
>> evidence, that the abiltiy with mathematics at all is genetic, and
>> rare (say 10% of the population).
> What do you mean in saying 'ability with mathematics at all'?
>If you mean, say, sufficient ability to do calculus ok, then I might
>agree. If you mean, say, elementary algebra, I'll disagree based on
>observing an unspecial school district (not wealthy, no commitment
>to learning for its own sake, etc.) getting about 95% of its students
>to the point of solving linear equations without great trauma.
>
I agree. Sometimes it all depends on how the material is
presented. One of my kids had a second grade teacher who
liked to play a game with her class.
She'd draw a box on the blackboard and then ask the students
what number was in the box. Of course, some guessed. After
a while they got the idea that there was no way to tell.
So she'd give them a hint. For instance, she'd write a plus
sign and a three and then an equals sign and a five. She'd
tell the class that if you added three to the number in the box
you'd get five.
The kids figured it out in no time at all.
One of those drawings was still on the board one afternoon
after class when I went to see her about something else entirely.
I laughingly accused her of commiting algebra on second graders.
And she told me that if I said anything I'd ruin it because
many parents would be up in arms scared that their kids were
being ruined by over exposure to math.
I never squealed. At least not for a fair number of years.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Walter Bushell
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> But is that the same? You don't start teaching Math by introducing Roman
> numerals, I suppose? I don't think that "early" equates "more basic" or
> "less complex" It seems to me that in Math in particular, the simpler
> solutions to a mathematical problem came later than the more complicated
> ones.
But we do start the study of physics with Galileo, kinematics and so on,
then Bohr atom and then into elementary quantum mechanics and
relativity. If we started with the best modern theory, none of the
students would believe it, one has to avoid the skepticism by becoming
progressively more absurd.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.