| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Actually, this brings up the important idea that belief or paradigm inform
everyone's way of thinking, and actions. While the word belief can be
thrown at someone as a pejorative, religious people use it as a positive
word. But in science we also have beliefs that inform what we do, but we
may call them paradigms. For example we believe that the scientific models
we have devised are universal and applicable. Even though we acknowledge
that there may be deviations, changes in the current models is impeded by
the unconscious rejection of evidence.
Students have exactly this problem when confronted with Newton's third law.
They reject the counterintuitive notion that the forces are equal. But then
the instructors who have firmly incorporated this idea into their psyches do
not understand how students can reject NTN3. And of course instructors have
their beliefs. For example the belief that their lectures are effective has
in general been severely questioned by the research of the past 30 years.
Just recently a 2YC instructor of my acquaintance said that it should be
possible to simply show teachers how their teaching is not effective, and
they would simply change their methods. Here is a BIG misconceived belief.
There is volumes of evidence that this seldom happens. A few unique
individuals are capable of changing paradigms such as Mazur, Hake, Redish...
when confronted by evidence.
I would say that total rejection about human influence on global warming is
a misconceived paradigm. However it is not directly linked to the
fundamentalist religions. Indeed there are now Evangelicals who are talking
about global warming and making it a priority in the name of stewardship.
The linkage between the anti-human influence and Evangelicals is because of
the political coalition put together by the Republican conservative
radicals. Essentially in the quest for a political majority they have
successfully linked powerful business groups, Evangelicals, and old
fashioned conservatives. However these very groups have fundamental
disagreements over a number of issues. Old fashioned Republicans such as
Goldwater would have found ID to be anathema.
At present there is a possible disaffection by the Evangelicals because they
are realizing that their mission can be tainted by the powerful business
groups who seek more money and really have little concern for morality. And
even among the Evangelicals there are both fundamentalists believers in ID
and non-fundamentalists. It is possible that some Evangelicals could
realign with Democrats because the social issues, including global warming,
match better while others may stick with Repblicans on the basis of
"morality" and theology (ID).
Another example of a misconceived paradigm is that specific teaching methods
are better because it makes sense. While there is evidence that at phonics
is more effective with younger children, there is also evidence that whole
word techniques are more effective in other situations, and that phonics can
produce very slow readers. But the department of education has mandated
that phonics should be the preferred method and is denying money to programs
on the basis of information which is at best circumstantial. Indeed the
current administration has tried to hide evidence in favor of PER inspired
techniques, while at the same time paying lip service to research based
education.
The list goes on. Here are some common misconceptions that either have no
evidence or have been disproved. Private education produces better results
(recent analysis showed the opposite). Technology improves education (not
shown in general, but true in specific limited cases when surrounded by
appropriate pedagogy).
So why don't we keep comments about ID out of debates about global warming
and stick to evidence. ID can be discussed separately, and there will be
little disagreement there. Remember we have our own misconcepted paradigms.
Historically very good scientists have rejected things like the germ model,
kinetic theory, quantum theory... on the basis of their paradigms, and I
don't think any of us are immune to this. Call others pig-headed if you
wish, or misconcepted, but please no religious metaphors.
Incidentally one good volcano could totally reverse global warming and throw
us into a nuclear winter followed by an ice age. John Leonhard's recent
"Engines of our Ingenuity" detailed this. John BTW is a church going
Episcopalian, and an Emeritus prof. in engineering at Univ. of Houston.
John M. Clement
Houston, TX
It's my opinion the human caused global warming doubting crowd is onthe
same level of respectability and credibility as the intelligent designcrowd
and in fact are funded from the same general sources and share the same
political views. At this point , this is what I have come to trust.
I've been wondering about this juxtaposition myself. But I've run
across far too many in the geological field (for example) who have
given me thought-provoking responses to the question. I have yet to
run across any such from the ID crowd. So I've come to conclude that
your point has little validity. Of course, I'm talking about the
science, realizing that political views and possibly funding sources
do indeed affect the arguments, on both sides.
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l