Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: edsheppa
I see; you're excluding everything a scientist does except their published work from the realm of science. That is far too limited a view IMO.

If the question before the house is "What should my 5th grader be taught on the public dime?", and you've decided to teach science, then rigorous pedagogy must apply.

Science does not include any and all half-baked notions floating around in the science community. There are a virtually infinite supply of such, and if you are going to give special consideration to ID, then you ought to stand ready to accept the ontological fancies of the Berkeleyites, the Baalites, the flat-earthers, the wiccans and the devil worshippers when they want your kids to learn their special notions as well.

I'd pass on that smorgusbord, myself. If you are going to describe science to children, it ought to be what most currently active scientists think is science.

3,524 posted on 01/07/2003 2:15:04 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3343 | View Replies ]


To: donh
...then rigorous pedagogy must apply.

Pedagogy? Why bring that up? :-)

But seriously Don, pedagogy is not primary, it serves a goal; here that goal is teaching about science. Science is much more than a set of published results, it is a process, a history, a community etc. Learning about the governing paradigms is central, it isn't all that should be taught.

if you are going to give special consideration to ID

I don't know what gave you that idea. I don't see how teaching about ID serves the goal. OTOH if I were convinced it would, the I would support doing so.

3,674 posted on 01/07/2003 11:09:39 PM PST by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3524 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson