Re: Readers respond to Sajid Mahmood's "abolish science education"

On 15 Jan 2006 04:41:54 -0800, "Alexander"
<alexanderhudson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>A.Carlson wrote:
>> On 14 Jan 2006 22:36:08 -0800, ck19bla@xxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>> >science should be taught in public schools. period.
>>
>> Absolutely, I agree, and without being adulterated simply to appease a
>> certain segment of society. Furthermore, the way I see it, the public
>> is much better served when everyone is exposed to the truth, whether
>> they like it or not. The question I was dealing with was whether or
>> not an individual should be able to opt out under certain
>> circumstances and then what to do about it if they do.
>>
>> There seems to be two levels in the fundamentalist's fight to win the
>> hearts and minds of the student. The first front is where they are
>> trying to expose all students to their corrupted version of science,
>> sex education, or whatever seeing as though they think they know
>> what's best for everyone. The second front is where, failing with
>> their first choice, some want the individual to be able to opt out one
>> way or another, either simply as a matter of choice or due to the fact
>> that the subject matter conflicts with their own personal beliefs,
>> presumably with no penalty.
>>
>> The way I remember it, at least at the higher levels of education,
>> specific subjects such as biology that would cover the origins issue
>> were electives in the first place. If this were universal then
>> perhaps the best answer to the fundamentalists is to simply tell them
>> to take a hike since no one would be forcing their own kids to take
>> biology (I know that I chose physics over biology).
>
>The problem with this approach is that although it would certainly make
>life easier in terms of public school education in the US you would be
>accused of enforcing a religiously based apartheid (however absurd that
>might sound it's what would be claimed).

I would think apartheid would be a good analogy only if the
alternative was actually taught in a separate class and if the people
in question weren't welcome to learn in the original class. We are
also talking here about people who often *choose* to remove themselves
from the learning process when the material is objectionable.

Although I believe that we would all be better off if everyone *gets*
a good education in science, I'm not so sure that everyone *needs*
one. It should go without saying that scientific illiteracy is pretty
poor in this country but I can't help thinking that at least some of
this seems to be by choice.

>In some respects you'd also be giving the fundamentalists exactly what
>they want: Evidence that the public school system (and therefore the
>secular state/federal authorities) is deliberately targetted and
>excluding Christians on purely religious grounds and simultaneously
>propelling campaigns for home schooling on a mass scale such as
>constantly proposed by SBC (the only argument they forward for SB's to
>go to public school is so they can witness to the unconverted).

Except that no one is being or would be targeted. It is they who are
removing themselves from the learning process. Maybe this shouldn't
be tolerated but then the school system opens itself up to the charge
of indoctrination by force. Unfortunately, simply insisting on
scientific integrity in the classroom gives many Christians enough of
a reason to home school.

>Socially speaking I think this would be a disaster. You should _want_
>fundamentalists to be exposed to proper science. You should _want_
>them to be dragged kicking and screaming into cosmopolitan, tolerant,
>21st century culture.

Ideally, yes. But 'indoctrinate' them against their will?

>The fundamentalists, as a social movement are terrified of the
>education system as it takes the edge off the extremism and creates a
>more liberal attitude to Christianity. Once you have more moderate
>religoius beliefs then everything else falls into place.
>
>If you effectively segregate communities it's not long before trenches
>are being dug and you're waiting for the whistle to go before wandering
>back into no man's land.

But in a free society such as ours, it is they who are choosing to
segregate themselves. The reasons you stated above are just a few of
the reasons I don't like the idea of home schooling. But the
alternative, a sort of state sponsored indoctrination, even if I see
it as perfectly sound information, is still troubling to me. A
compromise in the course material though should still be out of the
question.

>> The real stink comes when a kid is required to take a course that,
>> based on religious grounds, they might find themselves being exposed
>> to 'objectionable' material. The problems that this may cause isn't
>> just with the potential direct conflict with the more belligerent
>> segments of society but also with how educators may 'tone down' the
>> material or completely avoid it in order not to be offensive to some.
>> I've known college professors who have avoided covering the subject of
>> human evolution unnecessarily, even if it might add relevance, simply
>> to avoid being 'offensive'.
>
>So what you need to do is start being active in changing the social
>climate so that the material is not 'offensive' such as here in the UK
>where there is no debate about evolution being taught in schools.
>Changing attitudes is the only long term solution to the issue.

When there is a strong fundamentalist presence in a community, the
only way not to be offensive is to compromise and 1) not teach it, 2)
water it down to de-emphasize the more objectionable parts (even if
pertinent to the concept being taught), or 3) Teach alternatives as
well, no matter how bogus.

>> Is it the right thing to modify the material to avoid being offensive?
>
>Not if it's accurate and presents the facts as we know and understand
>them. Scientists can be so much more honest in this regard. Einstein
>didn't like the conclusions his theory led to about God but it doesn't
>stop him presenting the ideas and having them corroborated.
>Intellectual honesty is a good thing and should be encouraged both in
>scientific and cultural terms.

What if the modification necessary to placate the offended leads to
the subject matter not being adequately covered? And where will
placating religious fundamentalism stop? It isn't as though placating
these clowns doesn't come without real costs either.

Sex education, for example, plays an important role in the overall
health of the community. Abstinence based programs insisted upon by
the religious community have been proven failures and yet the
fundamentalists continue to insist upon them.

>> Is it right to force individuals to be educated about matters that
>> they find objectionable on religious grounds?
>
>The point is you are not actually 'forcing' them to learn anything.
>They are being taught various aspects of science (if we're still
>discussing evolution here) but this doesn't mean they are being
>'educated'. It's not as if they are being strapped down and told to
>'believe'.

I may agree and even see it this way, but the issue is that the
individuals (or their parents) don't. I'm also trying to be a bit
empathetic here. I certainly wouldn't want to be forcibly taught
something that I actually find objectionable.

>If you take this argument to the logical extreme you couldn't teach
>_anything_. My own area of sociology would be wiped out overnight
>(yeah yeah I can hear the snickering from certain quarters saying that
>might be no bad thing). It would also effect geology/geography,
>history, physics, chemistry and so on. Because fundamentalists pretty
>much object to _everything_ you're onto a non-starter anyway.

I agree to a point, but I'm not so sure that society is irretrievably
harmed by an insistent minority being allowed to opt out as long as
they are recognized accordingly. IOW, to earn a state recognized
diploma you must be properly educated. It's not the end of the world
if a few people chose not to be properly educated or seek vocational
training instead.

After all, we don't force Amish children to meet the same educational
standards as the rest of the community. Then again, I don't think
anyone will be hiring doctors and rocket scientists straight from the
Amish community either. Here is an example of people who opt out and
are simply recognized as such.

>The educators and the establishment guiding those standards should
>stand ground on these issues because that's their job. Otherwise
>you're on the top of a long slippery slope that ends with history and
>science being rewritten or not taught at all in order to appease a
>vocal religious group who, when it comes down to it, only want _their_
>version of events taught. What's democratic about that? I've always
>been suspicious of bullies like that.

This is why I prefer that they allow students to opt out and they be
recognized as doing so as opposed to recognizing home schooling as a
viable alternative when the individuals in question are simply
avoiding the objectionable material. Maybe we shouldn't allow either,
but then we're right back to offending some people or watering down
the material to avoid offending them. This country, with its emphasis
on individual freedoms, doesn't make things easy.

>> Is it the lesser of two evils to teach a watered down, less
>> objectionable version to appease some so at least they are exposed to
>> something even if this robs others of a more thorough understanding of
>> things? And to what degree might this currently be going on under the
>> radar?
>
>Probably more than anyone would like to think. Fundamentalists have
>already circumvented Roe v. Wade in various areas by not outlawing
>abortion but by making it virtually impossible to get one. Don't think
>it's altered the rate of illegitimate kids being born but as that sort
>of thing only happens to poor people I don't suppose anyone is that
>bothered anyway.
>
>>
>> Teaching the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth - to
>> everyone - is not always a given option.
>
>
>It is. You just can't always make people listen

.