> > To call it a "lie" is, in my not at all humble opinion, dogmatic. > >Well, yes. But what would you, then, label someone who says >"This is the way it is done. This is THE method" when, in >truth, it's only a standardized version? Or the one used >generaly, but not always. If it was an adult, I would call them misinformed. We are, however, discussing how it is taught in grade school. Now, as for how it's taught in highschool, I would reply that, for the most part, it's *not* taught. High school science, as I stated elsewhere, all too often tends to emphasize the absorbtion of facts without giving much, if any, attention to the methodology, period. As a consequence, many adults are left with a deliberately simpified version until such point that they take advanced science coursework in college... which many adults never actually do. >It's a grey area, to me. Telling a bunch of kids that there is >one way of doing something -- and they have to follow that way -- >when, in fact, there are multiple ways of doing it may not >be a lie *exactly*, but it comes pretty close. I have to disagree. If I want to teach a 2nd grader about farming, I'm going to tell them farmers plant their crops, water and fertilize them, and harvest them. I am not going to go into the intracacies of crop rotation, pesticide use, and the environmental impacts of farming. Am I lying to the kids? No. I am presenting a complex subject in a manner sufficiently simplified for them to grasp the roots of the issue (pardon the pun). It is (to mix metaphors) a platform for further learning and not intended to be comprehensive. So it is with the generalized version of the Scientific Method that most people are presented with in grade school. The problem is not that the kids are being "lied" to, it is that, for many, no one ever moves them beyond the basic platform to a more sophisticated understanding of how science works. If you want to criticize *that*, I'll stand right beside you and add my voice. But I won't support the contention that the generalized version is an appropriate starting point for introducing the real methodology of science. >One could then call the teachers who say such dogmatic.... Most of the teachers who say such are teaching students for whom that presentation is appropriate. Now, if you can point me to, for instance, a Junior level highschool teacher who says that, I'll have words far more unkind than "dogmatic" to express my contempt of their presentation. >Now, if they were to mention that this was the way they were >going to do it in class, but was in no means the only method >out there, I wouldn't have such a problem. Teaching young children is a tricky issue. If you present them with caveats and conditionals, you run a serious risk of losing them. It is generally easier *and* better to present them with simplified information that you then, as their knowledge grows and their capacity to distinguish subtle relations develops, expand upon. >The more narrow the thinking, the less we learn. (Which, I suppose, >is why I have no problem with my views being countered. Heck, I >could be wrong....:) I don't think that you are "wrong" so much as I think you are misplacing your criticism. There is a *lot* to criticize about how science is taught in this country -- a whole LOT -- but I don't think that the way the methodology is generally introduced is part of the problem. I also have an issue with this particular example because it's often advanced by individuals with a specific anti-science agenda (and, no, I am not accusing anyone on this list doing so). It is often put on the table as a statement with merit (and I don't deny that it is, in absolute terms, a misrepresentation) and then equivocated into an argument for a Constructivist (i.e., all knowledge is equivilent and science doesn't have any special merit) position. _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail