salem@sri-unix.ARPA (Bruce B. Salem) (03/05/87)
In article <12550@watnot.UUCP> ccplumb@watnot.UUCP (Colin Plumb) writes: > > In article <1416@sri-unix.ARPA> salem@sri-unix.UUCP (Bruce B. Salem) writes: > >In article <646@cdx39.UUCP> jc@cdx39.UUCP (John Chambers) writes: > >> Oh, yes, another loss: Back in the 40's and early 50's, we had high-school > >> biology texts that did a reasonably good job of introducing the concept of > >> evolution; religious pressure caused the publishers to eliminate this part > >> of the texts. Now we have a population that thinks that it is reasonable > >> to debate whether "scientific creationism" should be taught in schools. > >> The very fact that they can get away with using such a phrase and not be > >> laughed out of the room is evidence of how much we have lost on this front. > > > > There are several ways to look at this. > > > > Some possible interpetations: > > > > 1) The schools, especially public schools, have been co-opted into > >thinking they have to please everybody, every minority that has a voice in > >their community and state, and not offend anyone. > > Unfortunately, there is a point to be made that, since children legally > must go to school, what they are taught there must be acceptable. Acceptable > to whom is a trickier point. Takers? Actually this is an involved issue that I didn't want to go into deeper due to my lack of expertise. I would only add that selection of curriculum is alot harder now than it was 20 years ago because the school system has become much more politicalized and legalistic. Teachers may not have as much say as School Boards, politicians, parents or even students in the final content of their school work. > > >People don't understand what science claims anymore. They con't distinguish > >it from non-science, cult or religion. > > Could I ask for evidence of this? If true, things are worse than I > thought. I meant that the general public has a harder time distinguishing scientific claims from psudeoscience or non-science, partly becuase they don't know what science is and is not, and partly because there are many psudo-scientific arguments shown them. Exanine comercials for over the counter drugs and cosmetics, you will find many psudo-scientific methods of persuasion there, graphs without units or scales, claims with undefined or vague terms, of course these ads are meant only to give the impression of objectivity and authority. People are not usually attuned to give them the critical eye. The popularity of Valikowsky, Brumuda Triangle, UFO-stuff, fad diets, celeb. exercise programs are all examples of psudo-science or poor critical judement, ability to distinguish between authority-figure and extertise and agrument, that are common mistakes made by people. Alot of this is due to the effect of mass media on reasoning. For a proper appreciation of a scientific finding you need to have time to follow the argument for the result based on interpetation of several investigations and the data. There is no time for this on the Nightly News. Even a presentation on a show like Nova is going to be constrained by time to give each nuance credible coverage. The same can be said for newspaper and magazine articles, although it is possible to find Nature or Science at the public library. Still most poeple get their impressions from mass media. -- Bruce B. Salem UUCP: hplabs!ames!spam!sri-unix!salem ARPA: salem@unix.sri.com SRI International PHONE: (415) 859-5334 PN309 333 Ravenswood St. Menlo Park Ca. 94025