tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7133810669455539532.post7991488087934129499..comments2023-07-09T06:46:29.763-07:00Comments on So, this is a treadmill: Scientific Illiteracynzformehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13982194544873836336noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7133810669455539532.post-86129490373745859212005-08-31T18:56:00.000-07:002005-08-31T18:56:00.000-07:00I honestly have nothing against science. I'm actua...I honestly have nothing against science. I'm actually all for it. I just feel it should be like having a talent at a particular sport.... those who have it should occupy a sort of a very exclusive high priced niche. Our system will steer people into science who belong there, no matter how much Geology we force onto someone.<br><br>I taught science for a year. I wasted a lot of time teaching kids a Periodic Table Of Elements that they'll never again reference once they've left my class. That time would have been better spent teaching them current events, so they don't fall for our President's low-rent chicken man BS when he's lying to them on the television. THAT would accelerate the democratic process.<br><br>I did this because the Russians once got a Sputnik up before we did, leaving us vulnerable to an ICBM attack B4 we could respond with bombers. That dude walking on the moon was worthless....but the missile that put him there evened the Cold War. It wasn't a group effort made by 280 million Americans. The guys who put us on the Moon were high-paid specialists that our society had produced long before I was teaching Darwin to a bunch of hoodlums.<br><br>As far as informed discussion goes, can you honestly tell me that your high school science class- with the famed "mile wide, inch deep" curriculum- taught you more about Stem Cell Theory than the newspapers did? Short of the Scientifically Literate, 99% of general-citizen science discussions are half-fast.<br><br>The best answer I saw to either of our arguments was the guy in Scalzone's comments who wrote about taking his kid fishing..."Fish by the tides, learn astrology," etc... The kid will learn what science is practical to him...and he'll catch a lot more fish practicing than he will if he knows what the symbol for Adamantine is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7133810669455539532.post-1902174861852258952005-08-31T21:35:00.000-07:002005-08-31T21:35:00.000-07:00Thanks for dropping by, m-. And very well put. Ac...Thanks for dropping by, m-. And very well put. <br><br>Actually, I did not have a "generic" high school science class. My only science in high school was an AP Physics class in which I learned a hell of a lot about kinematics, dynamics, waves & optics -- and while I admit none of this stuff has come up in my job, I've been known to throw around a little kinematics in my daily life. (Like figuring out how long you would free-fall on the 80-meter bungee jump.) But I'm just weird that way.<br><br>But I do disagree with you on the idea that science should just be studied by specialists. I think it's important to have a general well-rounded education -- both for general knowledge and for opportunity. Otherwise you risk someone educating himself specifically for a particular career or trade, and you miss out on discovering a hidden capacity, or interest that the student never knew he had.<br><br>There's also elements of "cross-training" in learning different fields. Science, in particular teaches a model of inquiry which is damn useful elsewhere. I mean, SURE, the kid might LEARN about double-blind controlled experiments playing with rats, but that stuff can be applied to ANYTHING. What I wouldn't give for a general populace trained in skepticism and the ability to spot poorly substantiated BS.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com