I missed the part where he learned that homeopathy is a scam. He certainly didn’t discover it during the lecture.
Don’t get me wrong. I agree that homeopathy is false. But the boy in the article had a pre-conceived idea about the subject. And, of course, his pre-conceived idea is probably correct. It’s more important that he learn WHY the theory is wrong than simply learning by wrote that something IS probably wrong.
Number Six said
(bolding mine)
Ah, but there’s the rub!
Lets be honest here. We don’t know exactly what the kid wrote as his answer. Was it something along the lines of, “Naturopathy can only be considered as quackery since there is no true scientific evidence to support that it works. The current body of evidence contains only anecdotal evidence in the absence of a control group.”
Or was it something more like “Naturopathy must be quackery since only a bookish shrew like Dr. Oram, who probably hasn’t gotten laid in 15 years, could think it actually works.”
Based on the wording of the question I think that if the answer was like my former example, than the grade of ‘D’ is wrong. If the answer was more like the latter example, than the ‘D’ is deserved.
How do you know that? If I was ignorant of homeopathy (which I largely was before this thread) and I had someone tell me we need to base our diets around our blood types, that we have an “intelligent” self-healing process, that any cure must be shaken at each step, etc. there would be a 1000 decibel alarm bell ringing for me.
What if he already knew homeopathy inside and out before the lecture? Then, skeptical or not, he wouldn’t have learned anything new from the lecture and presumably would fail the test.
Anyway, the job of a teacher is to educate. Having a homeopath lecture the class is doing the opposite of educating. The kid who failed the assignment might be the only student who succeeded in not unlearning 
There are times to be technically correct, and times to just “give the people what they want.” Knowing the difference is a valuable skill, and this kid just learned a little bit about it.
I don’t se how the student could be accused of not fulfilling the assignement. He was told to write down five things he had learnwed about homeopathy, and he wrote down five instances of homeopathy’s errors that he had learned. Frankly, it sounds m to me that that kid is much more ready for college than his peers–college classes require much more critical thought and analysis than do high school classes.
I sympathize with the student (because homeopathy is a crock of shit), but I want full detail on what exactly was assigned and how exactly the student responded before I fully commit to an opinion.
Aw c’mon, Cervaise, go off half-cocked! All the rest of us are doing it
Ah, but you don’t know that’s what he did. You can’t be sure he wrote a thoughtful analysis without seeing the assignment. If he wrote a thoughtful analysis, based on what the lecturer talked about, then he should not have received a low mark. If he wrote a half-assed, dismissive response which reflected nothing in the lecturer’s, um…lecture, then he deserved the grade he got.
According to Randi…who heard it from the dad…who heard it from the kid who originally heard something from the teacher.
When a story gets to third generation (each generation, apparently with a viewpoint, maybe even a propensity to “spin”)…the original specifics may have been lost.
Five Things I Have Learned from This Thread
[ul]
[li]That people will often draw conclusions based on incomplete or inaccurate information[/li][li]That people often have agendas that shape their view of events[/li][li]That skeptics are no different from anyone else - their agendas are just different[/li][li]That some teachers are bad teachers, and some students are bad students[/li][li]That the distinction between regurgitating what the teacher wants to hear, and actually learning something, is a subtle one.[/li][/ul]
Regards,
Shodan
I agree with Duck. (Don’t faint, Duck! :D)
Suppose the guest lecture had been about homophobia and tolerance, and the teacher had asked them to write five things they had learned about homosexuality. If the boyfriend had written five different ways he had learned that tolerating homosexuality is bullshit, would he have fulfilled the assignment?
If his work were well-reasoned and based on things said by the speaker during the presentation, then yes, he would have fulfilled the assignment.
That’s exactly why I hold you in such high regard, Gobear. I disagree with you, but I respect your position.
To take Libertarian’s argument to the opposite extreme, what if the speaker had been a holocaust denier, and the student had written five different reasons why he knew the holocaust really happened?
I think that the reasoning behind this type of assignment is to ensure that the students actually listen to the speaker and pay attention to what is said. Disagreement should be allowed, as long as it’s a reasoned statement, and fulfills the assignment of describing 5 points. 5 variations of the same thing (“it’s crap”) does not necessarily fulfill that assignment. Without knowing more solid details, I can’t say how I would have graded it.
Or what if the speaker had been a proponent of pseudoscientific quackery unsupported by any evidence?
I question the validity of these analogies comparing falsifiable medical assertions with historical arguments, or religious and political opinions (though I think the above historical comparison is closer in spirit, since as historical events go, one to which there are still living witnesses, not to mention film, photo, and written accounts, is about as “provable” as it gets).
Having some nutjob take up class time with assertions that are undebatably wrong, like Flat Earth or homeopathy or creation science, is different than having that time taken up by a lecture on something like gay rights or the One True Religion or some other subject about which there is certainly still debate, even if I think I know the right answer.
My point was that there is no point to arguments of the form: “If the speaker had said X and the student had said Y, would you still say Z?”, because the speaker didn’t say X and the student didn’t say Y. I chose an extreme position to illustrate. Sorry I wasn’t more clear about what I was doing.
Carry on all 
Oh. That’s sorta what I was saying, too.
Lovely.
Tea?
I disagree with this on the very strongest terms.
Exposing children to alternate viewpoints is one thing, but endorsing those viewpoints is entirely another. The topic on which that person was lecturing is demonstrably crap. It has no place whatsoever in school to be taught as something factual, any more than creationism, flat Earth and ghosts should be. That person, as I read it, was brought in as a legitimate scientist. This is a completely and utterly wrong thing to do.
I would support the discussion of such topics in a science class as a way to show how unproven, unfounded, and unsupportable claims make their way into the public consciousness, but never, never as legitimate science (until shown to be otherwise). They might as well hold witch trials in the schools.