Skip to main content

Fakery, Wackery and Tragedy Aids Science Teaching

From the TES.

Conspiracy theories, creationism and 9/11 can help children to evaluate evidence, expert argues

Original paper headline: Fakery, wackery and tragedy: all grist to the mill in science teaching

Internet conspiracy theories and the controversy over creationism should be embraced as opportunities to engage pupils in scientific theory and critical thinking, according to a leading science educationalist.

Anu Ojha, head of education at the National Space Centre in Leicester, argues that the tactic is the best way to “guide our children through the labyrinth of information, misinformation, claim and counterclaim which characterises scientific discourse in the media and online”.

He says that the internet is the main source for scientific, societal and political information for the new generation of “21st century citizens”, born from 1995 onwards.

That leaves them susceptible to unsubstantiated claims such as the idea that the moon landings were faked - believed by a quarter of the British population, according to a poll last year - and that the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre were a Western conspiracy.

Mr Ojha, who taught secondary science for 13 years, says teachers should tackle these theories head on and show pupils how scientific knowledge can be used to discredit them.

Delivering the annual Tribal education lecture last week, he cited three arguments used to support a 9/11 conspiracy theory (see box).

By pulling them apart using science, teachers could both deliver the curriculum and give pupils the crucial “critical thinking skills that they’re going to need to navigate this turbulent information ocean in which they find themselves adrift”, he said.

Teachers should also be prepared to tackle the debate over creationism, he said.

“It’s fantastic for evaluating degrees of evidence, highlighting the crucial difference between dogma and evidence-based scientific theory,” Mr Ojha said in the lecture.

Afterwards he told The TES: “It is not about opening the floodgates to creationism in the classroom. It is about being confident enough in having the levels of evidence to back up the scientific point of view.”

Peter Main, Institute of Physics director of education and science, said: “There will inevitably be cases where a pupil raises topics such as creationism.

“A good science teacher may choose to use the question to illustrate why the particular theory is not scientific,” he said.


Continues here.

Comments

Giford said…
Exactly right, imo.

It's all too easy to get your case across in the internet age, no matter what it's (lack of) merits. Distinguishing the ridiculous from the credible is going to be a vital skill - and it's the best way to promote a whole raft of 'common sense'/rationalism issues - evolution, vaccines, global warming and others.

Gif
pikeamus Mike said…
A fair few biology teachers, especially in the US, already debunk YEC as part of teaching evolution precisely because it's a good example of being led by the evidence. PZ Myers, for example, covers creationism in the very first lecture of his introduction to evolutionary biology (a first year college course) each year.

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

Why I won't be voting Labour at the next General Election, not even to 'keep the Tories out'.

I have always voted Labour, and have often been a member of the Party, campaigning and canvassing for them. For what it’s worth, here’s my feeling about voting Labour next General Election:   1. When the left vote Labour after they move rightwards, they are encouraged to just move further right, to the point where they are now probably right of where e.g. John Major’s Tory party was. And each time the Tories go further right still. At some point we have got to stop fuelling this toxic drift to the right by making the Labour Party realise that it’s going to start costing them votes. I can’t think of anything politically more important than halting this increasingly frightening rightward slide. So I am no longer voting Labour. 2. If a new socialist party starts up, it could easily hoover up many of the 200k former LP members who have left in disgust (I’d join), and perhaps also pick up union affiliations. They could become the second biggest party by membership quite quickly. Our voting

Aquinas on homosexuality

Thought I would try a bit of a draft out on the blog, for feedback. All comments gratefully received. No doubt I've got at least some details wrong re the Catholic Church's position... AQUINAS AND SEXUAL ETHICS Aquinas’s thinking remains hugely influential within the Catholic Church. In particular, his ideas concerning sexual ethics still heavily shape Church teaching. It is on these ideas that we focus here. In particular, I will look at Aquinas’s justification for morally condemning homosexual acts. When homosexuality is judged to be morally wrong, the justification offered is often that homosexuality is, in some sense, “unnatural”. Aquinas develops a sophisticated version of this sort of argument. The roots of the argument lie in thinking of Aristotle, whom Aquinas believes to be scientifically authoritative. Indeed, one of Aquinas’s over-arching aims was to show how Aristotle’s philosophical system is broadly compatible with Christian thought. I begin with a sketch of Arist