"Teachers first, scientists second"

[Bunyip]

Fair enough. I don't mean to suggest that the general situation isn't unfortunate, because it is. But I think being excessively judgmental of prospective biology teachers is counterproductive. Bunyip's post below is a perfect example of this.



If that's the judgement you wish to pass, so be it. But you know, if I let myself be sad about normal things all the time, I'd be clinically depressed. No thanks. I'll stick to just considering it unfortunate.



LOGIC FAIL: conclusion does not follow from premise.

No, that is perfectly sound logic. There is no scientific issue with evolution, only a perceived religious conflict and a political agenda. Neither of which have a place in science class.

EVIDENCE FAIL: conclusion is not supported by the evidence in the study, which, from what little information we have, doesn't explore the reasons for a prospective biology teacher's reticence.

It is exactly what the evidence in the study infers.

But hey, if it's secretly your goal to feed into the YEC agenda by alienating and demonizing your allies, mission accomplished!

You are getting pretty paranoid and unreasonable there.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is exactly what the evidence in the study infers.

Actually, he is correct in determining the logical flaws of that post. This has nothing to do with facts, science, so forth, but entirely upon how an argument is presented.
But most people do not actively think about making the conclusion logically following from the premises for everything they say, so it really isn't a good way to criticize someone's position, especially in such an informal environment. I know that I myself could easily be criticized for using passive voice, logical inconsistencies, and other things that technically you should not do, but our language and communication is not set up to be so rigid in how it's presented.

 

[Bunyip]

Actually, he is correct in determining the logical flaws of that post. This has nothing to do with facts, science, so forth, but entirely upon how an argument is presented.
But most people do not actively think about making the conclusion logically following from the premises for everything they say, so it really isn't a good way to criticize someone's position, especially in such an informal environment. I know that I myself could easily be criticized for using passive voice, logical inconsistencies, and other things that technically you should not do, but our language and communication is not set up to be so rigid in how it's presented.

It was an opinion, not a formal logical argument. It is also perfectly logical. How Quintessence mistook it for a formal argument I can only imagine.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is also perfectly logical.

What is logical, as in evidence, is not the same as an argument that is logically sound. The facts may entirely wrong, but by definition if the conclusion follows a logical pattern from the premises it is a logical argument.

 

[Bunyip]

What is logical, as in evidence, is not the same as an argument that is logically sound. The facts may entirely wrong, but by definition if the conclusion follows a logical pattern from the premises it is a logical argument.

Yes, I know how it works. As I said, what I posted was an opinion, not a formal logical argument. Opinions can be logical, and yes - that is not the same as a formal logical argument, which it wasn't.

 

[Bunyip]

In terms of understanding and sympathising with science teachers over their concerns regarding evolution, that would have stopped being reasonable about a century ago.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes, I know how it works. As I said, what I posted was an opinion, not a formal logical argument. Opinions can be logical, and yes - that is not the same as a formal logical argument, which it wasn't.

Opinions are not exempt: They too can be logical or illogical.
And as I said earlier, this is not the best way to judge a position, be it formal or informal.

 

[shawn001]

"
Intelligent Design on Trial
Science is "Exhibit A" in a landmark trial on the teaching of evolution.Aired November 13, 2007 on PBS



JUDGE JOHN E. JONES, III: Both defendants and many of the leading proponents of intelligent design make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general.

To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis, grounded in religion, into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions. The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the intelligent design policy.

NARRATOR: Citing what he called the "breathtaking inanity" of the school board's decision, he found that several members had lied "to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the intelligent design policy."

JUDGE JOHN E. JONES, III: The crushing weight of the evidence indicates that the board set out to get creationism into science classrooms, and intelligent design was simply the vehicle that they utilized to do that.

NARRATOR: Jones recommended to the U.S. Attorney that he investigate bringing perjury charges against Buckingham and Bonsell for lying under oath. And "the overwhelming evidence at trial," he said, "established that intelligent design is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."

JUDGE JOHN E. JONES, III: In an era where we're trying to cure cancer, where we're trying to prevent pandemics, where were trying to keep science and math education on the cutting edge in the United States, to introduce and teach bad science to ninth-grade students makesvery little sense to me. You know, garbage in garbage out. And it doesn't benefit any of us who benefit daily from scientific discoveries.

NARRATOR: The school district was permanently forbidden to teach intelligent design in its science curriculum. The administration was ordered to pay the plaintiff's legal fees, totaling more than a million dollars. And the election of a new school board, opposed to intelligent design, meant no appeal of the ruling would be mounted.

In the wake of the trial, TIME Magazine named Judge Jones one of the 100 most influential people of the year, but not everyone was so pleased with the Judge's decision.

BILL BUCKINGHAM: To put it bluntly, I think he's a *******. I think he went to clown college instead of law school or else he went to law school and slept during the Constitution classes, because his decision doesn't jive with the law. I think he should be on a bench, but it ought to be in a center ring of Ringling Brothers Circus. He...it's disgusting.

ALAN BONSELL: It makes me feel sad. We, as a board, were trying to make Dover the best school district it could be. That was our goal. At least mine was. I was trying to...we were trying to take it up to make it the best.

RICHARD THOMPSON: I think, first of all you, you have to say we had a fair trial. I'm just disturbed about the extent of his opinion, that it went way beyond what, what he should have gone into deciding matters of science.

NARRATOR: The Discovery Institute also was displeased. Soon after the decision, the institute published a 123-page book distancing itself from the case and criticizing the ruling as "judicial activism with a vengeance."

The verdict turned out to be more controversial than Judge Jones had imagined. Following the trial, he received death threats. Jones and his family had to be placed under round-the-clock protection.

JUDGE JOHN E. JONES, III: I could never have imagined that I would receive threats to my person in an establishment clause case. But that's what happened in the Dover case.

NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial

 

[shawn001]

"Beliefs do not change facts. Facts, if one is rational, should change beliefs"
ricky Gervis

 

[Bunyip]

Why should we permit teachers to perpetuate the fraud that there is a controversy? 'Teach the controversy' was the agenda of the Wedge strategy, which has been exposed. So why would we tolerate any teachers or educators persisting in propogating a fraud? I have no sympathy whatsoever for any teacher 'uncomfortable' with teaching evolution. That it is controversial was a lie that has been established in court.

 

[Me Myself]

From the OP article

"All the students were training to be biology teachers; many were not comfortable with the theory of evolution . . . ."

Not uncomfortable teaching it, but uncomfortable with evolution itself, which I take as having serious doubts about it. Would these make good biology teachers? Not in my book.​

(Bold letters are mine)

Ah! so you know whats YOUR take on it.

Well unless it says they have doubts about it, we can also simply assume they see it as an uncomfortable truth in their political landscape.

Why do you assume they dont believe in it or have doubts in it? Why do you judge them based on this assumption?

 

[Me Myself]

"Beliefs do not change facts. Facts, if one is rational, should change beliefs"
ricky Gervis

Beliefs dont change facts? Ah ha... He seems to be quite misinformed the guy.

 

[Me Myself]

I am not. I've even gave a presentation at a symposium (that was watched by some of the higher ups and more prestigious faculty on campus) that included images of Muhammad, and because it was relevant to the topic (this particular point being the differences between pre-9/11 when nobody cared and post-9/11 when people became afraid) I was not worried, scared, nervous, and I had no anxiety about it even though I know there are many Muslims at school, many of them who are from the Middle East. My presentation was even one of the finalists for best presentation, despite the fact that showing images of Muhammad is a very controversial issue.

congratulations! You are an exception!

 

[Me Myself]

The controversy is political, not scientific. The controversy should be taught in the context of religion and politics, not science. More importantly, that there is a controversy must not effect the science curriculum.

Given that the fraud here was exposed some years ago, children should be given a class exploring why something that was established to be a deliberate attempt to subvert the US education system is STILL being promoted. They need to understand why a fraud is still being perpetuated years after it was exposed.

I agree with all of that.

I also understand why they´d be nervious doing that part of their jobs.

Do you all honestly believe that jobs shouldnt accept people who get nervious on any part of it? I mean I honestly dont get it. The article is merely saying they are nervious about teaching that which they know is controversial. That´s what will happen with most people, for obvious social, human reasons. If you want teachers that dont feel this way (either on biology or anything) you will get less teachers willing to teach this.

Why do you want less teachers willing to teach it?

 

[Me Myself]

Oh gawds.

First time I knew I was going to be giving a lecture to a big room of college students? I went to find the classroom to sit in it for a while to acclimate. The damned room had stadium seating. As I stood there at the front, I thought about them all looking down at me.

I got over it.

You mean you are human? with like, EMOTIONS?!

 

[Bunyip]

I agree with all of that.

I also understand why they´d be nervious doing that part of their jobs.

Do you all honestly believe that jobs shouldnt accept people who get nervious on any part of it?

No, and I never suggested anything of the sort. People whose religious belief leads them to deny science, should not be science teachers.

I mean I honestly dont get it. The article is merely saying they are nervious about teaching that which they know is controversial.

Evolution is not controversial, 'teach the controversy' was a line used by the Discovery Institute in order to defraud the public.

. That´s what will happen with most people, for obvious social, human reasons. If you want teachers that dont feel this way (either on biology or anything) you will get less teachers willing to teach this.

Why do you want less teachers willing to teach it?

I don't. I want only honest teachers in biology class, not religious propogandists.

Any scientific controversy over evolution was over by the mid 19th century.

 

[Me Myself]

No, and I never suggested anything of the sort. People whose religious belief leads them to deny science, should not be science teachers.

I agree that people that deny science shouldnt teach it, but what does that have to do with the study? Are the teachers said to deny evolution?

Evolution is not controversial

I assume you dont live in the US, or never step out of the lab?

Look, I was shocked to find out it was controversial in the US, but it IS obviously controversial. Now, just because its not controversial in the scientific community (biology to be precise) doesnt mean its not controversial.

And getting anxious about teaching a subject that is controversial doesnt mean you deny science.

Any scientific controversy over evolution was over by the mid 19th century.

Who is talking about scientific controversy? I am talking about a controversy which I never said had anything scientific about it.

 

[Bunyip]

I agree that people that deny science shouldnt teach it, but what does that have to do with the study? Are the teachers said to deny evolution?

Why else be 'nervous' about teaching kids the truth?

I assume you dont live in the US, or never step out of the lab?

Look, I was shocked to find out it was controversial in the US, but it IS obviously controversial. Now, just because its not controversial in the scientific community (biology to be precise) doesnt mean its not controversial.

And getting anxious about teaching a subject that is controversial doesnt mean you deny science.

Sure it does. The 'controversy' only exists in the US, and is a political attack on science not a legitimate concern.

Who is talking about scientific controversy? I am talking about a controversy which I never said had anything scientific about it.

Then in science class a non-scientific controversy has no place.
If the controversy is not scientific, what relation does it have to science class?

 

[Me Myself]

Why else be 'nervous' about teaching kids the truth?

Many teachers fear to lose control of a classroom. Specially new teachers who are just starting.

I honestly thought that was obvious.

Sure it does. The 'controversy' only exists in the US, and is a political attack on science not a legitimate concern.Then in science class a non-scientific controversy has no place.

Students do a lot of things that have no place in a science classroom, and teachers that are new to teaching, most of em, are anxious about handling difficult situations.

Of all the things a student can do in a science classroom that has no place in a science classroom, being persuasive about creationism and the need to teach it is a very scary thing they could do. Notice, knowing science and being persuasive are not the same. Being persuasive and being right or even making reasonably logical arguments are also not at all necessarily tied.

So, basically teaching a subject that is controversial, is challenging . (whether the controversy has any legitimacy is completely irrelevant with it being challenging and stressful)

 

[Bunyip]

Many teachers fear to lose control of a classroom. Specially new teachers who are just starting.

I honestly thought that was obvious.

First time nerves is not what the study was discussing. I thought that was obvious.

Students do a lot of things that have no place in a science classroom, and teachers that are new to teaching, most of em, are anxious about handling difficult situations.

Of all the things a student can do in a science classroom that has no place in a science classroom, being persuasive about creationism and the need to teach it is a very scary thing they could do. Notice, knowing science and being persuasive are not the same. Being persuasive and being right or even making reasonably logical arguments are also not at all necessarily tied.

So, basically teaching a subject that is controversial, is challenging . (whether the controversy has any legitimacy is completely irrelevant with it being challenging and stressful)

Giving the ' controversy' any scientific legitimacy would be deceptive.