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]

Re: [Phys-L] Does anyone doubt that one political party is against science and education?



I look, and I observe two things.

First, I see verbiage that _*without additional context*_ looks quite reasonable. Who could be against "objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories"? What scientifically-aware person can be against science being taught "as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced"? I also see verbiage that on the face of it looks odd: who could be against "the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills" or of "critical thinking skills"?

Yet with added context, and being conscious of the (not so) modern tendency of using euphemisms and hiding unpalatable social and political goals behind nice-sounding language (c.f., George Orwell) we also know that behind "challenging theories" lie challenging both generally accepted evolution and broadly questioned AGW (not that I ever saw real scientists afraid of challenging anything ... except when they are left-wing social scientists). Similarly, but with a nice contrast, we also know that left wing social theorists hide their elevation of social-justice concept over "just" academic and scientific knowledge behind highfalutin "critical thinking" and "high order thinking skills," to the actual detriment of both.

So if I were to respond to your actual point and try to take it on its face value, I'd say that the platform shows an unwise implicit support for questioning evolution opening up to intelligent design, and a wise implicit support for questioning and challenging AGW. I would also see an very wise, even if not so well-written, rejection of false progressive promises of "higher-order" or "critical" thinking skills based on empty promises and promoting content-less education. To sharpen the point, much of Orwell's critique was not directed at the right wing ...

But my second point is probably much more important. Why do you think that injecting party politics is appropriate on this forum? And even as you did, why didn't you "bother" to mention this is the Texas Republican platform, not a national platform?

On 7/1/2012 1:02 PM, John Clement wrote:

Look at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/27/texas-republican-party-2012-platfor
m-education_n_1632097.html?utm_hp_ref=education

"The position causing the most controversy, however, is the statement that
they oppose the teaching of "higher order thinking skills" -- a curriculum
which strives to encourage critical thinking -- arguing that it might
challenge "student's fixed beliefs" and undermine "parental authority." "

> From the proposed party platform:
-------------------------------
Controversial Theories - We support objective teaching and equal treatment
of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life
origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable
scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and
students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these
theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any
kind.

Early Childhood Development - We believe that parents are best suited to
train their children in their early development and oppose mandatory
pre-school and Kindergarten. We urge Congress to repeal government-sponsored
programs that deal with early childhood development.

Knowledge-Based Education - We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking
Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar
programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE)
(mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose
of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental
authority.
-------------------------------

Obviously they want to teach creationism, and don't want students to have
their "beliefs" challenged. They also don't want children to get a head
start. In other words keep them stupid! Of course understanding that there
are various scientific alternatives within science is an important goal, but
it is obvious that they want unscientific religious dogma taught as the
alternative.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@mail.phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l