Amen. I would add that college students should be taught of the significance for them of so-called Problem of Induction" and how this problem was solved,, circa 1975, by the late theoretical physicist Ronald Arlie Christensen by enunciating the Principles of Reasoning that he celled "entropy minimax."
Thanks John! I would love to see critical thinking incorporated in school curriculum and browsing the website by Stephanie Simoes, it’s good to know there are “teachers” out there organizing the approach starting early in life. I am going to pass this info along to the teachers in my family. Childhood is the perfect time to learn skills and critical thinking is so valuable and will pay off a lifetime. 👏👏👏
I taught elementary school for 25 years so I am qualified to comment on education. My strength was reading (1-5gr level). I did teach the scientific method step by modeled step, and the students did their projects in groups, in class so I could facilitate. It took over a month given the time allotted for science. I doubt teachers do this at all anymore if they ever did.
Once a child can read, they can compare, contrast, predict, and analyze texts, plots, settings, and characters, etc. Sadly, testing has taken precedence, and little effort is put into digging deeper in thinking about a story, it's theme, purpose, sources, etc.
IMHO, it is all about asking yourself questions before, during, and after reading, and not just answering them for a test. This has to be modeled and practiced without the pressure of performance.
However, it never occured to me to use the scientifc method for reading, but it would work.
"Pseudo-science" your list of pseudo sciences should also include political and a host of other social fields that herald the name of science in their discipline. For reference see the dispute between Samuel Huntington and Serge Lang over the admittance of Huntington into the National Academy of Sciences.
These fields of study are commonly referred to as "Soft" Sciences, but they are barely that if anything, simply because it is nearly impossible to isolate dependent and independent variables that conform to rules of scientific experimentation, observation, and conclusions.
The science title is misused almost as much as the engineering title, where a trash collector is a sanitation engineer and a home-maker is a domestic engineer. People see the word and immediately assume a sense of certainty on the actions and conclusions put forth from people wielding the title.
1. What delicacies should be incorporated in teaching children?
2. How do you define pseudo-science?
3. I'm not sure what your point is regarding "science zealots", What does left brain thinkers have to do with making science a religion, especially since not all scientists are wanting to make science a religion?
4. Since the author acknowledges the imperfections in science, what point are you trying to make?
Your last reply said nothing, it was just a list of cheap shots, and now you refuse to answer saying "read McGilchrist". That's not an answer, it's an evasion. I can only conclude you can't answer, so you won't answer.
Stephen: TY for sharing your opinions. My short answer is that you are conflating scientists with Science. Science is a process, and has proven to be the most effective way we have of getting to the truth about technical matters. Scientists, on the other hand, are many times individuals who have political or economic agendas, and they hide behind their supposed connection with Science.
Amen. I would add that college students should be taught of the significance for them of so-called Problem of Induction" and how this problem was solved,, circa 1975, by the late theoretical physicist Ronald Arlie Christensen by enunciating the Principles of Reasoning that he celled "entropy minimax."
Thanks John! I would love to see critical thinking incorporated in school curriculum and browsing the website by Stephanie Simoes, it’s good to know there are “teachers” out there organizing the approach starting early in life. I am going to pass this info along to the teachers in my family. Childhood is the perfect time to learn skills and critical thinking is so valuable and will pay off a lifetime. 👏👏👏
I feel like an idiot here. LOL.
I taught elementary school for 25 years so I am qualified to comment on education. My strength was reading (1-5gr level). I did teach the scientific method step by modeled step, and the students did their projects in groups, in class so I could facilitate. It took over a month given the time allotted for science. I doubt teachers do this at all anymore if they ever did.
Once a child can read, they can compare, contrast, predict, and analyze texts, plots, settings, and characters, etc. Sadly, testing has taken precedence, and little effort is put into digging deeper in thinking about a story, it's theme, purpose, sources, etc.
IMHO, it is all about asking yourself questions before, during, and after reading, and not just answering them for a test. This has to be modeled and practiced without the pressure of performance.
However, it never occured to me to use the scientifc method for reading, but it would work.
"Pseudo-science" your list of pseudo sciences should also include political and a host of other social fields that herald the name of science in their discipline. For reference see the dispute between Samuel Huntington and Serge Lang over the admittance of Huntington into the National Academy of Sciences.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1987/4/29/nas-rejects-huntington-for-second-straight/
These fields of study are commonly referred to as "Soft" Sciences, but they are barely that if anything, simply because it is nearly impossible to isolate dependent and independent variables that conform to rules of scientific experimentation, observation, and conclusions.
The science title is misused almost as much as the engineering title, where a trash collector is a sanitation engineer and a home-maker is a domestic engineer. People see the word and immediately assume a sense of certainty on the actions and conclusions put forth from people wielding the title.
Astrophysics considers neuropsychology to be pseudo or non-science.
Just a small example...of the localized galaxies of disparate information we call science.
I was in large scale computer science for 30 years, top of the food chain...and used to think like you.
Years later, I discovered a neural comparison between the 3,000-year-old Upanishads and
Neuropsychology. It's very clear once understood. Folks don't realize their neural makeup.
As an author, I make many new discoveries, generally unknown to the stargazers and pedants.
I have studied the processes of sciences for many years...it is in a fledgling state.
Dreaming of pure science is a goal, not a reality: The Religion of Scientia.
No worries. Take Care and good luck with your learning in the future. I will be learning too...
Bye.
Good job, ready for tomorrow's edition!!!!
Off-base on certain subjects. Teaching the children is a very delicate matter, involving
much more than you mention.
You tout a bit of pseudo-science yourself, but don't know it.
Science zealots are left-brain-dominant thinkers, espousing the Religion of Scientia.
Most of them don't know themselves very well, but the posturing is heavy and thick.
Science is now heavily flawed, imperfect in method.
Goodbye.
Steven,
I'm not exactly sure what you object to.
1. What delicacies should be incorporated in teaching children?
2. How do you define pseudo-science?
3. I'm not sure what your point is regarding "science zealots", What does left brain thinkers have to do with making science a religion, especially since not all scientists are wanting to make science a religion?
4. Since the author acknowledges the imperfections in science, what point are you trying to make?
Can you expand on your thinking?
My last reply should be enough. Read McGilchrist for more analysis on left-brain approaches, and the harm it does to the World.
The Ego resides in the left brain. BTW.
Goodbye.
Your last reply said nothing, it was just a list of cheap shots, and now you refuse to answer saying "read McGilchrist". That's not an answer, it's an evasion. I can only conclude you can't answer, so you won't answer.
You don’t understand your own neural makeup.
That’s the true evasion.
Your reply basically said nothing.
If you read difficult works, like McGilchrist, you would learn more about your neural nature…
but no, you seem like a sci-zealot.
You can’t conclude… about what you don’t understand.
Goodbye…and good luck with learning.
That's still not an answer to my questions. You accuse, you evade, and pontificate from on high without justification. That's evasion.
Stephen: TY for sharing your opinions. My short answer is that you are conflating scientists with Science. Science is a process, and has proven to be the most effective way we have of getting to the truth about technical matters. Scientists, on the other hand, are many times individuals who have political or economic agendas, and they hide behind their supposed connection with Science.
Critical information, John. Thanks. Will be sharing.