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: possibly OT: NYT article on GA creationism/evolution debate



At 0:53 -0400 8/24/02, John S. Denker wrote:

There are valid grounds for concern, but let's not
over-react. Alleging dishonest indoctrination is going
too far.

And I don't think Cliff was going that far, only that making
unsupported assertions "sounded like" dishonest indoctrination.

Two wrongs don't make a right. I agree that PbBA (Proof
by Bold Assertion) is unscientific. I agree that many
textbooks engage in it.

But let's keep a grip on reality. We have excellent
methods -- physics methods -- for determining the age
of fossil-bearing rocks. So the aforementioned bold
assertions about paleobiology !!could!! be rephrased
in scientific terms.

And they should be, especially in introductory texts for young
students. As I mentioned in my previous post, they often can't offer
much of the evidence, which may be beyond the ability of the students
to comprehend, but it is inexcusable to neglect to mention that the
evidence is there and it is convincing. Saying "scientists believe. .
." is putting them on the same plane as idle dreamers, or the folks
who inhabit Sedona or Esalen. Yes, scientists "believe" but they
believe for some very good reasons, and the existence of those
reasons cannot be kept a secret to the kids who are reading the books.

There are lots of fine, honest reasons for abbreviating
the discussion of a topic:

[snip]

And I agree with all of them that you listed, and perhaps more. The
issue, IMO, is not that they can't be detailed in introductory texts,
but that their existence needs to be shouted from every page. If for
no other reason than to whet the appetite of the readers to seek out
those reasons. No scientific idea should ever be introduced in a
pre-college, and especially a pre-high school text without reminding
the reader that there is evidence to support it, giving a rough idea
of what that evidence is, how reliable it is, and how convincing it
is. (College teachers, since they are the authors of most of the
texts, are on their own in their courses.) Where the evidence is
understandable by the students, it should be given. Where is is
probably not, arrows should point those who are interested to where
they can find it, or the carrot of seeing it presented later should
be offered.

Constructive suggestion: this particular textbook
would have been much improved if it had included a
"for further reading" section with pointers into
the scientific literature.

Agreed, but it could have done even more.

We need to distinguish between
-- asserting a scientific fact, versus
-- trying to _prove_ a fact using PbBA.

There's nothing wrong with an assertion, as long as
you don't pretend that the assertion is a proof.

And, especially in school texts, the assertion is accompanied by
comments about the existence of evidence, and hints of what that
evidence is.

In second grade my teacher asserted that two plus
two makes four. I'm quite sure she didn't "prove"
it in any deep mathematical sense. (I very much doubt
that she, or anyone else within many miles, knew
enough about the axioms of arithmetic to even imagine
that such a thing was provable.)

No, but had she taken the trouble, she could have demonstrated it
with a few pieces of chalk. Maybe she did. I hope so. My second grade
teacher certainly didn't. I think I could have benefited from the
insight that multiplication is nothing more than repeated addition. I
didn't figure that out until years later.

The problem arises when lunatics see scientific facts
asserted without proof and think that if they make their
own assertions, without proof, they are entitled to an
equal hearing. They're not. To say that all assertions
should be given equal consideration is really bad policy.
It gives the biggest advantage to the biggest liar.

And that is just why it is critically important not to make
unsupported assertions in early science texts without at the very
least indicating that these are not unsupported facts, but that the
support exists, even if it can';t be presented there.

A thousand pieces of weak evidence do not outweigh one
piece of strong evidence. A million loud assertions do
not outweigh one piece of real evidence.

Exactly. And that fact has to be made abundantly clear to young
people who are just embarking on their study of science. Inference is
just not enough here.

Hugh
--

Hugh Haskell
<mailto:haskell@ncssm.edu>
<mailto:hhaskell@mindspring.com>

(919) 467-7610

Let's face it. People use a Mac because they want to, Windows because they
have to..
******************************************************