Well I’m not ready to start major research project, I’m just trying to get a handle on what you are actually talking about.
Fortunately, in our brave new world we have AI to do all the predigesting one could wish for.
Since I think a rough outline is helpful to understand what the heck you are on about, I hope nobody minds me sharing the following.
Quiry: “nature of science” (NOS)?
The Nature of Science (NOS) refers to the understanding of how scientific knowledge is developed, tested, and refined. It encompasses the values, assumptions, and epistemological principles that shape the scientific enterprise. Essentially, NOS is about understanding how science works as a way of knowing.
Here’s a more detailed look at the key aspects of NOS:
Science as a Way of Knowing: NOS highlights that science is not just a collection of facts, but a process of inquiry and understanding. It involves observation, experimentation, and the development of explanations and models based on evidence.
Tentativeness of Scientific Knowledge: Scientific knowledge is not static. It is constantly evolving as new evidence emerges and as scientists refine existing theories and models.
Role of Observation and Inference: Science relies on both observation and inference. Observation involves gathering data, while inference involves drawing conclusions and making interpretations based on the evidence.
Scientific Methods: There is no single “scientific method.” Instead, scientists use a variety of methods, including experimentation, data analysis, and theoretical modeling, to investigate the natural world.
Hypotheses, Laws, and Theories: These terms are often used interchangeably, but they represent different levels of explanation in science.Hypotheses are testable predictions, laws describe relationships in nature, and theories are well-substantiated explanations of phenomena.
Objectivity and Subjectivity in Science: While science strives for objectivity, it also involves human judgment and creativity. Scientists’ interpretations and choices of research methods can be influenced by their own perspectives.
The Social and Cultural Context of Science: Science is not conducted in a vacuum. It is influenced by social, cultural, and historical factors, as well as by the values and beliefs of the scientific community.
My question was directed at the general problem of science education, which needs to include NOS teaching. If the lay public of Florida had been so taught, they would have applied critical thinking in their judgment of the criteria that resulted in passage of this law. As a citizen, I would hope that thinking would lead them to campaign against it. There is a difference between teaching HOW to think and teaching WHAT to think.
By the way, as examples of advocacy in the classroom, I call your attention to two articles in NSTA’s journal “The Science Teacher” Vol. 92, No. 2.: “Fostering equity and advocacy in a high school biology classroom” p. 18, and “Individual awareness to systemic action” p. 65. See also the review section of the same issue, which reviews: “American Wings: Chicago’s Pioneering Black Aviators and the Race for Equality in the Sky”. Please explain to me how these subjects fit the definition of STEM.
I would like to stick to your opening gripe on teachers being political activists in the classroom . Can we stick with that before you pivot to other gripes ?
"In the second week, students delved deeper into advocacy, differentiating “Big A” advocacy, addressing broad societal issues needing large-scale action, from “little a” advocacy, which focuses on local concerns (Table 2). Activity 1 introduced these concepts with multimedia resources, prompting students to identify and research relevant advocacy issues. This set the stage for creating a “Big A” advocacy project for larger issues and a “little a” elevator speech for community-specific concerns. Activity 2 sparked a mini-debate on CRISPR technology, exploring genetics, ethics, and advocacy. In Activity 3, students finalized the “Big A” project, utilizing AI tools (such as GPT-3 by OpenAI), and crafted concise “little a” elevator speeches for local advocacy. Activity 4 involved submitting projects, peer presentations, and reflecting on the advocacy’s impact (see Supplemental Materials–Appendix 5 for definitions and examples of “Big A” vs “little a” advocacy). This approach highlighted the role of science in real-world problem-solving and empowered students to drive change locally and broadly."
Greenham is actually being relatively well behaved in this conversation, but he has done this before, where he doesn’t engage in a conversation, he demands you provide answers, evidence, proof, and context, while not reciprocating the same. Feel free to ignore him.
Hi howard, i have no qualms if you decide not to respond to my questions. And i agree you are free to ignore me as you are free to ignore Lausten’s intrusions .
Thanks, John. The ball is in his court, anyway. If he is serious, he will read the examples and have his questions answered. In any case, serious skeptics will have food for thought.
The “ideology of science” refers to the core beliefs and assumptions that underpin the scientific enterprise, shaping how scientists think about the world and conduct research. It’s not a single, unified belief system like a political ideology, but rather a collection of values and principles that guide scientific inquiry.
Here’s a more detailed explanation:
Key Aspects of the Ideology of Science:
Objectivity:
Science strives to be objective, meaning that observations and data should be free from personal bias or influence.
Empirical Evidence:
Scientific knowledge is based on empirical evidence, which is evidence gathered through observation and experimentation.
Systematic Methodology:
Science follows a systematic methodology, such as the scientific method, to gather and analyze data.
Skepticism:
Science encourages skepticism and critical thinking, questioning assumptions and seeking evidence to support claims.
Commitment to Truth:
Science aims to discover and understand the truth about the natural world, seeking knowledge that is accurate and reliable.
Rationalism:
Science relies on reason and logic to explain phenomena and develop theories.
This is exactly the kind of activism that howard deplores when activists fearmonger to our kids about climate change and brainwash them to care about their future with their political ideology. Howards thoughts parallels with the Right wing interviewer here
Members of the Welcome Party, the developing moderate wing of the Democratic Party (https://www.welcomestack.org?r=h88v0), expect to be stereotyped as lackeys for Trump/Conservatives, whenever they disagree with liberal ideologues. At the core of the problem is the comforting certainty that faith in an ideology provides. Critical thinking allows for questioning all certainties. I do not deplore political activist “fearmongering”. I am a member of FIRE. I deplore an education system that requires a teacher to be a political activist in class, to be a preacher instead of a teacher.
You said that. You stand behind this so i dont understand the preaching in classroom regarding climate science?. What is that preaching you deplore in the climate science classroom?
The articles I cited do not deal directly with climate change. They deal with activism. In a NOS-taught class the climate change problem would be presented with data interpretations that challenge the consensus. It is here that the approximations made by the mathematical models may be revealed. Here is where the frequent phrase “it has been proven that…” is exposed as being inconsistent with the uncertainty that is part of the foundation of science. The errant phrase is also an important target for critical thinking, a fundamental goal of NOS teaching. If you have not heard a teacher using the errant phrase while referring to climate change mechanisms, you are lucky. I have also heard it from scientists, who let their enthusiasm run free before a lay public audience. But the problem I have that is most on point to your question, is the teacher who commands students to demonstrate, write letters, etc. If you need me to search the files of NCSE for examples beyond what I have heard from students, then I’ll have to charge you a research fee. Just send me your credit card information. The cost is $400/hr.
Yeah it’s kind of what thinking young people have done historically, so don’t understand why Howard’s in this tizzy.
Also vailed under all of this is Howardwinet’s undercurrent that anthropogenic global warming and the climate change it is bringing us isn’t an existential level crisis.
Well, … and the very importance learning about what we are doing to our one and only miracle planet is also missing from Howardwinet’s message.
And how many teachers demand that their students go out and protest. I’m sure it’s happened, but he makes it sound like it’s a national crisis. What’s up with that?
