A writer thinks flaws and controversies in science should not be avoided in schools.
Summary: Science fascinates elementary school children, but most lose fascination in the subject between the ages of 10 and 14. This is when adolescents look inward and seek to become adults. They experiment with risk-taking, rebellion, deception, questioning morality, etc. These changes affect how they respond to science lessons. Many studies show teenagers lack interest in science. Louise Archer who researches the sociology of education at King’s College, London, says there is “a mismatch between popular representations of science… and the aspirations, ideals and developing identities of young adolescents".
Yet, those scientists who change the world are themselves often like teenagers in their anti-authoritarian and risk-taking ways, instances of fighting, disregard of authority, and dogged determination in the face of scorn. Such behavior seems to go along with the creative pursuit of a breakthrough.
The problem is that students only hear of the breakthroughs, not the crooked paths to success which are hidden out of sight. It is the result of a long-running public relations campaign by organizations such as the Royal Society that can be called Brand Science. The campaign began after World War II when science was made to look terrifying with its atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the V2 rockets, and the experiments carried out in Nazi concentration camps and Japanese prisoner-of-war camps. In 1956 geneticist Jacob Bronowski said, “People hate scientists.”
As a result, both in the UK and America, the Brand Science trend began to put science only in the best possible light. This meant controlling broadcasters and making public promises of the benefits science could provide. For more than 60 years science has tried to be seen as trustworthy, morally upright and dispassionate, and providing a distinct path from hypothesis to experiment to deduction to advances and improvements.
This PR effort has had the effect of making science look dull. Scientists are perceived as unsmiling and lacking in creativity. A 2008 Dutch study found social, extroverted students tended to drop science subjects as soon as they can for more “human” disciplines such as law, politics and economics. Exposing the flaws of science – its outrageous behavior and characters – would help teens see scientists as role models, and thereby encourage the bold, adventurous, risk-taking minds of tomorrow.
To read the entire opinion piece by Mr. Michael Brooks, click on NEW SCIENTIST.
Comment: It is human nature that controversies tend to attract more attention than the dull recitation of approved ideas. From that standpoint, Mr. Brooks suggestion may make a lot of sense when it comes to inspiring students to take a greater interest in science.
Science doesn’t have to be unnecessarily dragged through the mud, however, but there are legitimate science-related questions that would make for a lively discussion in science classrooms. Is sending astronauts to Mars or back to the Moon worth the tremendous costs, considering the weak economies of our times? Should we be working harder on developing more-effective weapons of mass destruction? Is our privacy being invaded by such things as airport scanners and spy programs on the Internet?
One topic that is already controversial but which needs to be addressed with a much more even-handed approach is the discussion of our origins. Would students learn and remember more about the theory of evolution if public school teachers were allowed to teach both its strengths and its weaknesses? I think so. Several decades ago in Racine, Wisconsin, biology students were exposed to both sides of the debate over Darwinism. The published responses suggested a great interest in the subject on the part of the students as a result of the debate.
Supporters of evolution though are not eager for this theory to be controversial in public schools. Eugenie Scott of the pro-evolution National Center for Science Education has been quoted as warning, “In my opinion, using creation and evolution as topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject one of the major themes in science.” This remark, of course, indicates a desire to sweep evolution’s problems under the rug.
Christianity too, it must be admitted, can be controversial. Jesus once even said, “For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law — a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household’” (Matthew 10:35-36). This means that Jesus knew that following Him could cause relationship problems not only with society in general but, sadly, even with the members of one’s own family. Thankfully, most people who read this post do live in a society where Christians are free to worship according to their consciences, even if they must put up with the establishment’s atheistic theory about our origins.
PRINT (Black type on white background)
********************************************
Want to be automatically notified each time there is a new post? Just e-mail your request to admin@lutheranscience.org].
********************************************
QUESTION OF THE DAY
Who is given credit for discovering the unique beauty of snowflakes? (It wasn’t a professional scientist.)
A Jericho, Vermont farmer named Wilson A. Bentley is given the credit. A self-educated scientist, Bentley not only documented his discoveries in more than 5,000 photomicrographs, but he studied the weather conditions that produce snowflakes.Source: American Profile (January 22-28, 2012)
********************************************
NOTE ON VISITOR COMMENTS: Visitor comments are invited including those containing alternate views. However, comments containing profanity or advertisements will not be published. After posting a comment, please allow several hours for it to appear on the blog.
This is an interesting point that goes beyond the recent political distortions of science. The fact is that science has always had controversy at the edges of our knowledge. We like to try to pin things down in science, but obviously things become frayed at the edges. The challenge would be to make the esoteric arguments made by the most skilled practitioners relevant to the rather simple and non-controversial learning objectives of the classroom. It would have the advantage of causing students to not blindly accept the textbook, which might not be a bad thing.
ReplyDelete