"So I take it you disapprove of rigorous academic standards?"
"Ha! It is the seeming dearth of rigorous academic standards of which I complain!"
Mandating only one view be can be taught does not enhance the educational process. By mandating that only one view be taught one is teaching students that one must presume that one knows the cause of circumstantial evidence before examining it. By mandating that that only on view be taught it is teaching students that it is unimportant to contrast the rules of evidence, examine the weight or preponderance of evidence, and determine the relevancy of evidence on grounds of prejudice (pre–judging) or ones presuppositions. Intellectual curiosity is a prime motivation for learning. The best scholars and scientists have a desire/curiosity to explore a subject in detail--learn all there is to know about a subject or a particular area. By mandating that only one view be taught, it is teaching someone not explore a subject, question, or problem in detail or thoroughly. By mandating that only one view be taught it is teaching students it is not important to examine whether a statement is true or the probability of being true, not to develop tests for validity, and to regurgitate statements as true without thinking about them. Mandating that only one view can be taught is teaching students it is not important to be able to analyze and identify the assumptions behind a statement or problem and determine the validity of those assumptions. Perhaps an overabundance of regurgitation of statements about problems or questions while discouraging critical thinking skills about those statements will tend to educate better scientists, doctors, lawyers, detectives and engineers. Mandating that only one view is taught is clearly detrimental to the educational process.
We have academic freedom in the United States. You're free to investigate any line of reasoning you desire.
The problem seems to be other people are free to point out your errors.
Mandating that science be taught in a science class, is what they should be doing.
The only scientific theory that has held up to any scientific scrutiny is the theory of evolution, to bring in other unscientific "theories" to "compete" with it, destroys the very foundation of what science is.
Science is science, not what you would wish it to be, or want it to be.
So you advocate giving equal weight to UFO studies, Crop Circles, the difference between ascorbic acid and Vitamin C, alien anal probes, cattle mutilations, ESP, communication with the dead, and so forth?
The actual textbooks I have on my shelf, and which I have quoted from, discuss science findings from the historical perspective, detailing the path science took to current understandings. The actual books, as opposed to the caricatures discussed on these threads, discuss how evidence is collected and interpreted. They mention controversies and discuss how science deals with controversies.
I much agree.
I think the teaching by fiat of one view, construction of reality is very hazardous.
Of course, when God declares and makes His law resident in all alive humans' hearts . . . that will be a different reality.
But in the current one . . . I vote wholeheartedly for a diversity of options--especially where there's remotely reasonable room for differing views, perspectives.
I'd like to think that in most spheres of reality--I'd like an alternate view presented even where it was pretty plainly obvious that only one was consistent with observed reality . . . just to keep folks thinking and alert for alternate possibilities in general.
INQUISITIONS are rather horrible things.
FOSSILIZED TIDY LITTLE NARROW, RIGID BOXED thinking is just a few short steps from INQUISITIONS . . . if not already in lock step with them.
Fr.Pr. -- Mandating only one view be can be taught does not enhance the educational process.
I'll certainly agree that teaching the habits and skills of critical thought and self-directed research are important, but do the two of you disagree with the notion that high school students and undergraduates should first master accepted rudiments of a topic?
For example, there are certainly "alternative" views regarding proper grammar and english usage (ebonics comes to mind, and Stephen Pinker has some interesting views on innate grammatical abilities). Is "mandating only one view" in this area therefore improper indoctrination?
And how would that differ in science education?
There are no scientific alternatives to TToE. You could have a "view" of Math that begins with 1+1=3 but I don't think this should be taught in school. There is also "only one view" on chemistry, physics, astronomy (despite poor Pluto's diss), etc.
ID is Religion. If you want it taught in philosphy class, sure. But not as part of any part of the Sciences.
Jeepers, I don't see how! Especially given your concluding statement: "Mandating that only one view is taught is clearly detrimental to the educational process." [I strongly, even passionately agree with this statement.]
There's gotta be a typo in there somewhere! (Either that, or the above italics is "tongue-in-cheek?")
Thanks so much for stepping up to the plate on this question, FreedomProtector!
What restraint you show in understatement!