4 ms·

Feels out of context. I couldn't even figure out what age of students they're talking about until I read "One said the focus on four specific topics was likely

Feels out of context. I couldn't even figure out what age of students they're talking about until I read "One said the focus on four specific topics was likely to leave pupils bored with science by the time they reached secondary school." So I guess elementary school. Now, the complaint is that instead of physics, chemistry, and biology, it's "the Earth system, biodiversity, food, energy and water, and infectious diseases." That's all it says, I don't really know what that's supposed to mean. The elementary school version of chemistry I learned was just making vinegar and baking soda volcanoes. Maybe that's "energy" now.

revelio 3y ago
Seems pretty obvious what it's supposed to mean. Those topics are all selected for compatibility with ideological indoctrination and anti-science thinking. Basic science like physics and chemistry are a problem for woke authoritarians because you can do experiments in high school labs, and this introduces children to things like standards of evidence, the scientific method, statistical rigor, the idea that some things are universally true and false etc. More importantly it teaches them to think for themselves. Science is at its best when the teacher says "X is true" but then also "and here's why you don't have to take my word for it", which is a powerful introduction to adulthood. All the replacement topics are united by an inability to do experiments. Instead these fields rely heavily on unvalidated simulations of assumptions. These specific topics are also clearly selected for left wing environmental radicalism e.g. "earth science" means climate change, "infectious diseases" means teaching kids how important and brilliant lockdowns and masks are, "biodiversity" means the importance of not building anything and so on. Universities are a power base for the left because they strictly teach students to silo themselves and never question professors, especially not those from a different field. High school doesn't teach that mentality to the same degree. If this curriculum does goes through, science will immediately be redefined as "here is what academics say, memorize it, regurgitate in exams, if you do that accurately you're good at science". This is exactly what they want, because if there's one thing that COVID revealed very well it was the rampant fear of those in power of anyone who doesn't define science as blind acceptance of the word of government and academic authorities.
- rhaway84773 3y ago
  > These specific topics are also clearly selected for left wing environmental radicalism e.g. "earth science" means climate change, "infectious diseases" means teaching kids how important and brilliant lockdowns and masks are, "biodiversity" means the importance of not building anything and so on. Sounds like the only ideologically bent character in this entire saga is you.
  - revelio 3y ago
    Given the past few years, what exactly do you think terms like earth science or infectious diseases will mean in practice? Not some hypothetical curriculum that might exist in a theoretical universe, but in this one.
    - hot_gril 3y ago
      My elementary school science class in the early 2000s was mostly earth and plant science, with a unit on viruses too. This seems pretty normal. And in my case, the teacher said that climate change isn't caused by humans. I have no idea what this little draft means in New Zealand. There's not much to extrapolate from.
      - revelio 3y ago
        Ah right I see. That sort of thing sounds OK for primary/elementary school. You'd expect science at that level to be focused on soft stuff. Expecting kids of that age to do real experiments or care about the philosophy of science is too much, if you can get them out into the garden and looking at insects and flowers then that's a good start. I think there's a subtle difference between viruses/bacteria and what government officials mean when they talk about infectious diseases. Obviously any good biology curriculum will cover viruses and bacteria at the microscopic level. But when governments talk about "infectious diseases" what they really mean is the macro scale of epidemiology and other social sciences, because they're constantly being told by rich NGOs that we now live in an age of pandemics, and they think about disease purely through the lens of social policy and enforcement. The response to COVID was widely condemned as un-scientific because link between what academics/civil servants recommended to governments and what was actually scientifically known about viruses was nearly non-existent.

revelio 3y ago

Seems pretty obvious what it's supposed to mean. Those topics are all selected for compatibility with ideological indoctrination and anti-science thinking. Basic science like physics and chemistry are a problem for woke authoritarians because you can do experiments in high school labs, and this introduces children to things like standards of evidence, the scientific method, statistical rigor, the idea that some things are universally true and false etc. More importantly it teaches them to think for themselves. Science is at its best when the teacher says "X is true" but then also "and here's why you don't have to take my word for it", which is a powerful introduction to adulthood. All the replacement topics are united by an inability to do experiments. Instead these fields rely heavily on unvalidated simulations of assumptions. These specific topics are also clearly selected for left wing environmental radicalism e.g. "earth science" means climate change, "infectious diseases" means teaching kids how important and brilliant lockdowns and masks are, "biodiversity" means the importance of not building anything and so on. Universities are a power base for the left because they strictly teach students to silo themselves and never question professors, especially not those from a different field. High school doesn't teach that mentality to the same degree. If this curriculum does goes through, science will immediately be redefined as "here is what academics say, memorize it, regurgitate in exams, if you do that accurately you're good at science". This is exactly what they want, because if there's one thing that COVID revealed very well it was the rampant fear of those in power of anyone who doesn't define science as blind acceptance of the word of government and academic authorities.

rhaway84773 3y ago
> These specific topics are also clearly selected for left wing environmental radicalism e.g. "earth science" means climate change, "infectious diseases" means teaching kids how important and brilliant lockdowns and masks are, "biodiversity" means the importance of not building anything and so on. Sounds like the only ideologically bent character in this entire saga is you.
- revelio 3y ago
  Given the past few years, what exactly do you think terms like earth science or infectious diseases will mean in practice? Not some hypothetical curriculum that might exist in a theoretical universe, but in this one.
  - hot_gril 3y ago
    My elementary school science class in the early 2000s was mostly earth and plant science, with a unit on viruses too. This seems pretty normal. And in my case, the teacher said that climate change isn't caused by humans. I have no idea what this little draft means in New Zealand. There's not much to extrapolate from.
    - revelio 3y ago
      Ah right I see. That sort of thing sounds OK for primary/elementary school. You'd expect science at that level to be focused on soft stuff. Expecting kids of that age to do real experiments or care about the philosophy of science is too much, if you can get them out into the garden and looking at insects and flowers then that's a good start. I think there's a subtle difference between viruses/bacteria and what government officials mean when they talk about infectious diseases. Obviously any good biology curriculum will cover viruses and bacteria at the microscopic level. But when governments talk about "infectious diseases" what they really mean is the macro scale of epidemiology and other social sciences, because they're constantly being told by rich NGOs that we now live in an age of pandemics, and they think about disease purely through the lens of social policy and enforcement. The response to COVID was widely condemned as un-scientific because link between what academics/civil servants recommended to governments and what was actually scientifically known about viruses was nearly non-existent.