3 ms·
We absolutely must teach science, it is frankly ridiculous to assert that we should only teach the scientific method and assume everything else will follow from
by shkkmo 5y ago
We absolutely must teach science, it is frankly ridiculous to assert that we should only teach the scientific method and assume everything else will follow from that. It has taken millions of people hundreds of years to establish the corpus of scientific knowledge and understanding that knowledge is critical to advancing that knowledge or disproving it.
We could do a better job of teaching the science alongside the history of the process of its discovery and validation and incorporate actually reading scientific papers rather than just textbooks. We can emphasize science as an ongoing process rather than simply a "just so" story, but we absolutely have to teach its results and not just the methodology.
- ABS 5y agoI agree! I guess it's a good thing then that I did not write anywhere that we should only teach the scientific method :-) I made a statement about the argument (and title) of the article we are commenting, it doesn't automatically assert that everything else I'm not mentioning is not important/valid or should not be done at all.
- shkkmo 5y agoThe argument that article is making is a general argument about the philosophy of science and the types of demarcations between science and pseudoscience or fringe science. As such, it seems wholey reasonable to infer that you were making a general statement about how science education (particularly with the phrase: anyone's "science".) Since that was not your intent, what exactly were you trying to say? Which specific "sciences" are you advocating should not be taught and should be replaced by only teaching the scientific method?