CitizensChallenge,
Thank you for your interest. I’m just a scientist who believes that lay people should understand the value of asking the question “Is there any scientific foundation for concluding this policy will work as intended?” When I try to present my ideas about how teachers can produce a lay public that feels at ease asking such critical thinking ideas, I often see eyes glazing over. So I am reluctant to go on. That’s why I “stop at this point”. The unwrapping: Science teachers are supposed to teach science, which is by definition limited to exploring the natural world, in other words, “what, objectively, is”. Not what should/ought-to be. Preaching is not science teaching. The last sentence segues into the answer for your last query. Parenting is supposed to produce children who can be productive citizens. Parents are responsible, by law, for the behavior of their children. Logically, they are responsible for the “should/ought-to be” part of child development. Any teacher, particularly a science teacher, who takes on such a role had better be prepared to defend his/her position before a judge, when that position conflicts with the beliefs of the child’s parents. Not only does that cover the “home curriculum”, but religion is part of school curriculum (e.g. a comparative religion course–My daughter teaches high school in Scotland where this actually exists.), a parent may wish to contribute information about their sect for inclusion in a particular course.
Can you explain how should and ought is playing a role in the science classroom and lets say as an example when educating students on climate science
At present, the lay student being taught about climate change, is being scared with predictions of the dire consequences of ignoring human contribution to a long list of climatic trends. Not having a foundation of understanding the nature of science, which would include an honest assessment of how scientific models are constructed, both the teacher–yes, in my experience very few science teachers understand NOS, a condition exposed ruthlessly by John Rudolph–and the student are galvanized to take action the only way they know how, politically; demonstrations, letters to congress, essays, peer pressure, attempts to raise awareness in their communities, etc. Such behavior provides some psychological benefits for a socially developing adolescent. But the student is not acting from an understanding of how albedo affects the rate of adiabatic cooling during cloud formation. When you teach factoids you don’t have time to explore mechanisms. Admittedly, teaching the mechanisms may be beyond the ken of the lay student. But showing how climate scientists obtain climate data, process them, present them to their peers along with conclusions, and battle with their peers over the validity of these conclusions until a consensus is reached, reveals to the student the human side of scientific investigation. The student can identify with science as the work of a fellow human being, rather than as the production of godlike genius. The uncertainty exposed by internacine debates over scientific data, makes science accessible to the developing adolescent mind, awash in uncertainties. Preaching activism just makes science a political tool. I have used debates in my undergraduate bioengineering ethics course at UCLA to allow students to teach each other about alternative solutions to socially relevant scientific problems. I remained neutral. The sides were distributed randomly, by picking chips from a hat. Scores were determined by class review.
To clarify, are you saying that science teachers are telling students to engage in demonstrations? As part of the curriculum?
Nothing like that. Teachers are influencers. Adolescents are reactors. Each student is an individual and will express a conviction accepted from a teacher within the bounds of their character. Teachers are also individuals. Some are preachers at heart. As for preaching being part of the curriculum, please go to the NCSE website and read its accounts of state legislatures and school districts trying to get creationism into and eliminate climate change from the curriculum. One should not be surprised to learn that a teacher has led a demonstration. My bias is that the moment a science teacher conflates politics with subject matter, they cease to be a science teacher. In parallel, the moment a scientist compromises the integrity of his/her data he/she ceases to be a scientist. Similarly, the moment a priest violates the confessional, he ceases to be a priest (as I understand it). Note that I am not using “good” or “bad”. My conditionals are existential, by definition.
People being scared is always what reactionary right wing folks bring to the climate change conversation. All science teachers should be walking their students through the science of climate change and explain why its man made cause is a settled science, the projections over time in terms of temp rise and carbon conc with certain actions or no action taken and their consequences for life on earth. No science class should be absent of discussion regarding solutions through science and why govt policies do not reflect what the science demands to be done . Thats a great education to front the real world and i would be proud student and parent and citizen of a teacher leading the way for change for such a cause for what is the point of having knowledge if you are not going to act on it.
I know about that. I listened to the entire mock trial from Kansas board of education. But that’s not preaching in class. They wanted to add a one-page sort-of disclaimer in the front of science books, saying evolution is a theory and there are competing theories. There are entire creationism curriculums too, but it’s rare to see those in a classroom.
My personal experience is that these controversial issues barely make it to the student, unless they are hearing at home. My high school biology teacher spent about 5 minutes talking about birth control. I got the feeling that he would have liked to spent a lot more time talking about, including moral implications, but he was probably instructed not to. Also in college, I took a Freshman level class on energy, it included everything from coal to solar. It wasn’t propaganda, just running the numbers, but the global warming implications were there.
Now, I’m old, so, that was then. It’s been very weird for me to see the controversy over AGW after having that brief education. It gave me some immunity to the lies. Still, I see a gray here that you haven’t covered. Bringing up politics is not necessarily “conflating”. Politics is what we do when the science is not clear enough to tell us exactly what we should do. If a science teacher is obfuscating the science, making it less clear, or deliberately misinforming, that’s bad, obviously. But informing students that their choices today have consequences or actions of their leaders, political or economic, are likely to lead to their lives being worse, I’m not sure that’s wrong.
Am I understanding you as saying that, current global warming trends don’t predict dire consequences (because humans are ignoring the impacts that are unfolding across this physical planet)?
John Rudolph was tough to track down, (search engines aren’t what they used to be), and there are a few John Rudolphs of note.
The one that seemed closest, goes back to 2003
In hour one, producer John Rudolph, who garnered the prestigious DuPont Award for his work on the DNA Files, travels around the city, from the World Trade Center site to Jamaica Bay, investigating how the city is responding to the early signs of global warming.
Degrees of Concern - Part I
Producer John Rudolph went to Jamaica Bay in Queens to investigate what may be early warning signs of the changing climate.Degrees of Concern - Part II
John Rudolph speaks with a Columbia University scientist who warns that reducing emissions is not enough to address the threat of global warming.Degrees of Concern - Part III
John Rudolph reports that one of New York’s most vulnerable systems is the city’s water supply. One place where this weakness would first be detected is along what’s knows as the “salt front” on the Hudson River.Degrees of Concern - Part IV
John Rudolph explains how West Nile came to the city and how it has changed the way New Yorkers live.Degrees of Concern - Part V
Around the city and the region a number of efforts are underway to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other gasses that are blamed for the man-made disruption of the climate.John Rudolph reports that these efforts are not likely to protect New York from some widely predicted effects of climate change such as rising seas and more frequent storms.Additional Resources:
http://metroeast_climate.ciesin.columbia.edu/
Gateway National Recreation Area (U.S. National Park Service)
Credits: Producer John Rudolph
Senior Producer for Living On Earth Chris Ballman
That’s a pretty tough topic, where the fine detail is devilishly difficult. But then, how much does that matter, we do have historical records that constrain the error bars. Trying to make clouds central to the trends of the past century is chump-change at best, disingenuous at its worst.
Can you explain why you chose to single out “cloud uncertainty”?
I’m curious why you didn’t mention the physics of greenhouse gases?
Why the omission?
Isn’t that one is pretty straight forward physics, with error margins way the heck smaller that figuring exact specs on the Albedo of specific cloud types and at different altitudes, and latitudes, which is by nature infinitely complex.
And speaking of Albedo, how about the changes to Albedo around our North Pole and its cascading physical consequences?
Doesn’t that put to shame the entire collective uncertainly of clouds.
Right, which is why I’m wondering about the clouds - what about greenhouse gases and the our Global Heat and Moisture Circulation Engine, and the many pathways that sunlight-turned-thermo-energy travels?
Would you consider ocean acidification a "factoid’ worth glossing over?
This that what the IPCC has been doing.
I’d have been more impressed if you’d have brought them into the discussion at this point.
The IPCC process is well worth understanding especially the chain of command starting with scientists - and ending with the politicians, with few of those politicians acting in scientific good faith - but instead for nationalistic interests and profit’s sake.
Or do you not accept the IPCC "scientific authority on the topic?
You talk about revealing the human side of global warming science.
How about all the mass propaganda campaigns of lies, slander, character assassination, deception, misrepresentation, that industrial giants are behind?
Or would you dismiss that a irrelevant?
You are telling us that students can assess the science of regular people who put in the years to become expert in very, very complicated fields of science - by reading the few factoids they can comprehend.
What about that wording “godlike genius” I’ve never heard a serious climate scientist put on the airs of “godlike genius” it’s the industry anti-climate-science advertising campaigns saying that about climate scientists.
It’s not climate scientists doing all of that media manipulation and message massaging and crazy making.
What are you talking about? Any specifics you can point to?
Why not pointing any finger at Koch bros, or Exxon, and the like?
Please name some scientists who are doing this activism preaching?
Oh and why should kids be concerned over their future?
I’m sorry that sounds like teaching kids to win debates - with learning about the subject matter taking second place.
I am sad.
Right and the scientific community disciplines and shuns scientist who compromise scientific standards of integrity and honesty.
Some have called this guy a godlike genius,
but he would be the first to object to such nonsense.
For him it’s all about doing the work.
I noticed that too. I was going to wait and see how many more data points were smuggled in, that is, brought up without mention of the larger context or probabilities or their general place on the equation. I stuck to the point about teaching and politics. The clouds thing didn’t really support the rest of the post, as I understood it
You have preached an all-knowing political decree. That is your right. I agree with many of the scientific statements you make. But you preach as a private citizen whose position I respect. I speak as a former high school teacher who was a partner with the parents of the students he taught. My focus is building a context that results in a student understanding the nature of science. The mortar that holds together the “bricks” of that “building” is trust. Parents who have political views different from yours will not trust a science teacher who acts like Paulo Freire. In states where creationists are today pressuring their legislatures and school boards to allow their religion to be taught in public schools, teachers are fearful of teaching evolution. A parallel scenario has developed for climate change. Please visit the NCSE web site to educate yourself of the real danger that your funding can help reduce. The NCSE has defended science teachers in the courts and in these states for over 40 years. Their approach is to engage the parents in a manner foreign to the more militant CFI members. The successful teacher builds trust by respecting the parent and his/her role as a partner in the education of their child. The next step is to separate the regimes of science and religion (Religion is just another ideology. Political ideologies are just as non-scientific as are the religious ones.) and assure the parent that no ideologies are preached in a real science class. The final step is to point out that introducing religious ideologies into public school science classes is against federal law, which supersedes any state law. As a public servant, a teacher has no option but to obey federal law. So far, there have been no climate change science vs. religion cases tried before the Supreme Court. The current president is trying to extract, by fiat, the teaching of ideology (in the form of DEI) in the public schools. But since he is against the teaching of climate change, the NCSE cannot expect any help from him. My hope for CFI is for it to commit to protecting science teaching in the public schools by embracing the NSTA’s quest to replace the factiod approach of current curricula with a nature of science curriculum, and to purify that quest by stripping it of any political burdens.
I need to clarify the John Rudolph I refer to in my replies. I cannot find a reply link following the description of a celebrity in New York. The John Rudolph I speak of is a Professor of Education at the University of Wisconsin. He has written two texts that evaluate U.S. public school science teaching since the 19th century: “How we teach science” and “Why we teach science” are the texts. They are small texts that, I am convinced, belong in every library of science-aware citizens. Thank you
What?
Where? Now?
Who?
Do you have a link for that?
This?Nature of science: a new NSTA position statement | NSTA
Looks like it isn’t all that new
Hello to you howard,
Hard to make heads or tails from your posts. Examples work for me. What examples can you put forward of ideologies preached in real science classes?
For examples of preaching in high school science classes, I would refer you to the case studies presented through the years by NCSE. Please go to the center’s website. Even better, try to engage Glen Branch in an online conversation about the history of preaching in high school science classes. I live in Berkeley where my oldest grandson attends (and his brother will next year attend) its high school. He has complained to me about political activism by his teachers. There is a real world out there, Tex. And it is scary in places that may surprise you.
Thanks Howard. I would have thought someone who claims to be so invested into this would be able to come up with some examples off the top of their head.
All that is a little confusing to me. Do you have examples to share from the NSTA?
I’m almost the age of Warren Buffet. And my memory for details, like his, is not dependable. So I prefer to “lead a horse to water”. Besides, I have a hidden agenda. I think that CFI members can gain inspiration from the work done by NCSE. They are just the kind of people who can contribute the effective support it needs. My bias is that the dividends for my country of improving lay science education in public schools are far greater than those from attempts to convert a contemporary lay public mired in an ignorance that I am partially guilty of creating.
I would be copying examples from the NSTA website. I would suggest that anyone interested in their program read the story behind its development. The publication “Science Stories: Using Case Studies to Teach Critical Thinking” CF Herreid, NA Schiller, KF Herreid (2012) NSTA Press is a good starting point. The more recent “Nature of Science in Science Instruction” WF McComas (ed) (2020) has more background, but it is ponderous and, frankly, not as teacher friendly. I’m sorry I don’t have quick answers. But I think true learning takes place when a student develops a relationship with its context.
Not sure if you meant to be tongue in cheek with that but agendas are usually hard to hide on a forum.
That’s a mouthful. All interesting. Nothing wrong with focusing on the next generation. The “guilty” part is intriguing but I can’t make you confess.