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 23:09 2002/08/23, John Clement wrote:

Well the textbooks ... still teach "the scientific method" which has been
thoroughly discredited. See the latest issue of Jour of Res of Sci. Teaching.

I looked at the bio. text at our school and it said that hypothesis after
being accepted and verified many times turn into theories. I am afraid
that the old saw about theories turning into laws has not been completely
put to rest, and it now comes back in a slightly altered form. ... The
review of physics texts by fairly conservative authors in TPT even called
the sections on "the scientific method" anathema.

In California, the "scientific method" idea has recently (and inexplicably)
started to be pushed hard by science departments at public four-year
schools. In many cases, community college science courses will be flatly
rejected for transferability to certain public universities UNLESS the
course's catalog description explicitly states that the "scientific method"
(whatever that is) will be taught or illustrated, along with the course's
other topics (the list of which must sometimes be abbreviated slightly in
order to accommodate the now obligatory verbal homage to the scientific
method). This might explain, at least in part, why textbooks continue to
spend time on the subject.

I serve on our (community) college's curriculum committee, and have seen
these rejections, along with the letters explaining the reason for the
rejection, with my own eyes, so the observations are as irrefutable as
observations get. Of course, my proposed explanation is "only" a theory
(a(n) hypothesis, really, as it hasn't been tested).

Am wondering whether the course rejection phenomenon is universal, or
limited to just the land of fruits and nuts.

By the way, a Google search on "scientific method" will take you to some
frightening places, including many that are plainly /not/ scientific.
(Aside: please note my non-capitalized method of emphasis.) Only try this
if you're not already grading papers, and can afford to waste some time.

--MB