Teaching people to be skeptical does NOT mean “teach the controversy”.
Nor does it mean everything comes down to your opinion regardless of evidence.
Nor does it mean no matter what the evidence remain doubtful.
It does mean question everything and check things out for yourself. Let the evidence take you where it may even if you don’t like it. Hone your bullshit meter. Sharpen your critical thinking skills.
Anthropogenic global warming? It is fine to teach that the mountain of evidence supports it and that a small but vocal group challenges it mostly for self-serving purposes.
The skeptic should ask that the evidence for either side be available to check themselves and probably should explore it at least a little. Of course AGW people are more than happy to point to their mountain of evidence and will tell you to have at it. Those opposed will ask that you ignore the elephant in the room and just read this one paper. That should peg your bullshit meter.
Reminds me of that old journalist’s maxim, “If your mother says she loves you, check it out”.
Of course, you should also be aware when one side tries to silence the other. That might peg one’s bullshit meter as well. Also a determined effort to change the subject where the topic of cost-benefit analysis comes up is another indication that perhaps skepticism about agendas is warranted.
It is a mistake in journalism to suppose that both sides need to be given equal time in the name of balance. It is not “balance” to give the person who says the moon is made of green cheese equal time with the scientist saying the moon is mostly made of basalt.
The cost-benefit analysis is an entirely different question and certainly one worth having. However, you need to agree that it needs doing. As long as one side claims there is nothing to see then there is no discussion to be had on cost-benefits.
This may be due more to moderates changing their self identified party affiliation, than it is to individual Republicans changing their views on evolution.
Wow, that’s some censorship! They’re not putting on a non-scientist to present a viewpoint that runs completely contrary to a massive scientific consensus on a highly politicized issue! What a bunch of censoring monsters!
Look, at this point, regardless of what a few contrarians in congress seem to believe, global warming is real, most of it is caused by humans, and no reasonable cost-benefit analysis has “stay the course” as anything other than an unmitigated disaster. The BBC refusing to put people with anti-AGW views on is, at this point, akin to the BBC refusing to put people with anti-vaccine views on. It’s not “silencing the opposition”, it’s responsible journalism. When you run a respectable news company, part of your job is to keep the cranks from taking over the dialogue! And pretending that someone like Nigel Lawson has any business debating the issue doesn’t make you a fair and balanced reporter, it makes you part of the problem. I mean, in your own article, here’s what he had to say about computer modeling:
This is phenomenally stupid and shows a lack of understanding of the issue that runs deep.
Not presenting unscientific, uninformed bullshit is not the same thing as censoring a debate. And if it is, guess what: that’s a good thing. Censor away! Make sure that only the side that actually has solid evidence and the scientific consensus behind it can get their views on the air! If we did that more often, maybe Jenny McCarthy wouldn’t be such a huge problem. :mad:
Its not a good thing to try so hard to be unbiased, I think all teachers should teach a liberal (factual) viewpoint. After all, reality has a liberal bias
I think nine year olds are smart enough to understand that things aren’t quite black and white, sometimes. Wars, and fighting generally, are to be avoided, but sometimes are necessary. She painted herself into a corner with her absolute phrasing.
Indeed. Some of the issues I’ve discussed with third-graders this year:
-Ferguson and Eric Garner (brought up by students)
-Russian incursion into the Ukraine
-Same-Sex Marriage
-Balancing increased government services against increased taxes
-Possible and actual US involvement in the war against ISIS
-Netanyahu’s visit to Congress
and a lot more.
Over and over I make the point to students that good, intelligent people can disagree on these issues. (I even make that point with same-sex marriage, even though I’m not convinced it’s true–that issue is a bit different, IMHO, but I err on the side of neutrality). If a student gets too absolutist–“If I was Obama, I’d BAM! Kill everyone in ISIS!”–I talk about reasons to hesitate, counterarguments.
It’s heady stuff, no doubt. But over and over I have parents thank me for talking with their kids about issues, tell me their kids are educating them or their older siblings on current events, saying that it’s the kids’ favorite part of the school day.
Yes, presenting both sides is a challenge, and I’m sure there are times I could do it better. But I think it’s better to make a flawed attempt at talking with kids about real-world issues than it is to shy away from real-world topics out of a misguided fear of subjectivity.
Actually, we don’t really know what her phrasing was. This is what you said (emphasis mine):
There’s nothing wrong with a button that says “War is expensive. Peace is priceless.” (There’s nothing wrong with a button that has a picture of her dog on it, either!)
So what lesson do you think the teacher learned? I think it’s that when someone who wears a slogan isn’t smart enough to defend it against a third-grader – or at least defend it coherently enough for the third-grader to understand – then maybe they shouldn’t wear it. Your first sentence about war sometimes being unavoidable is all she needed to say. It applies to WW2 as well as the civil war. The problem wasn’t with the button but maybe with the teacher, but again, we don’t really know how she replied to the question.
Sooner or later, in this biz, someone WILL ask you a deadly question. My favorite is “There are a whole bunch of religions. Which one is RIGHT? Or are they all WRONG?”
There is no safe way to answer this question. Including “I am not allowed to answer that question, because there is no guarantee that it won’t piss off at least ONE of your parents.”
What if there isn’t another “side”? What if this alleged “other side” is usually presented by someone who has to be introduced with some variant of “he’s not a scientist, but he’s a first-class opinionated idiot”? What if this comes about because the “debate” is always between science and ignorance? Just how stupid does the “other side” have to be before you finally acknowledge that it’s a waste of time?
You want a cost-benefit analysis but no one is willing to discuss it with you? I am. Here it is:
You claim AGW doesn’t exist. So the cost of fixing it is zero and the benefits are infinite. Problem solved. :rolleyes:
“It is not in the interest of Social Studies to pass judgement on the practices of other peoples. We study other tribes to better understand the social nature of humankind as a whole.”
I think a particularly good answer to this is, “I don’t know - what do you think?” And then when they answer, ask them why. Deflect the question back onto them, and have them think through their answer.
My favorite variation of this occurred at lunch one day, when the second-grader next to me, a Jewish kid, said, “Mr. Dorkness, is it really true that Jesus was the son of god?” while over his shoulder the Christian kid nodded his head frantically and mouthed, “Say yes! Say YES!”
I gave him my standard answer, which is IMO perfectly safe. “Kid,” I said, “this is a great question. But it’s one of a few things I won’t talk with students about. I won’t tell you my political opinions, and I won’t tell you what I believe about religions. These are great conversations to have with your parents, and you can definitely have them with your friends, as long as you can be respectful, and realize that different people have different beliefs, and that’s okay.”
Sure, I could run into a fundy parent who’s pissed off at my saying that it’s okay to have different beliefs. But at the end of the day I’m an employee of a government that’s enshrined religious pluralism in its constitution, and I figure I can recommend religious tolerance therefore without violating my employment contract.
One of my favorite high school teachers taught Civics to the seniors. He was pretty open about the fact that he was quite far to the left on the political spectrum, but whenever classroom material got to a subject which was subjective or debatable, he would generally let us (the students) argue it out rather than impose his own beliefs on us. He would guide the discussion in an attempt to keep it civil, he would correct or challenge any obvious errors of fact, and he might ask someone to defend a position that they took, but it never came across as authoritarian.
I agree that in some of the “harder” disciplines (mathematics, physics, etc.) there’s really no need or (legitimate) opportunity for a teacher to inject a political or cultural bias of their own. There certainly are opportunities for that to occur in some of the liberal arts, but I think the best teachers in those arenas act more as a facilitator of debate and discussion. I think it’s possible to do that in a pretty neutral manner. Whether that’s what actually happens or not, I’m sure depends on the school and the teacher.
No, he could not have. It’s preposterous. The South was not going to sell the underpinning of their economy and way of life. Slavery was not just an asset, it was a social arrangement and support or opposition to it bordered on religious fervor.
