Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Massimo Pigliucci a worrisome character from the POV of science education.

September 2, 2008
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Massimo with an as yet undetermined appendage writes

Education is not about having “kids debate both sides,” since most kids would probably conclude that the earth is flat and at the center of the universe (after all, the sensorial evidence is overwhelming in favor of the flat-earth, Ptolemaic system).

If Massimo doubts that the science establishment can present the evidence for a round earth, like live satellite images, well enough to let children use critical thinking skills to decide if the scientists have made a compelling case, then quite frankly Pigliucci is a worrisome character whose own critical thinking skills leave a lot to be desired.

Comments
DaveScot I thought we were talking about a flat earth. I didn't see any mention of evolution in the story you posted and so I wasn't commenting on evolution. As I have no idea who this guy is I don't know anything about his views on evolution, I was just commenting on his comments as posted by you.GCUGreyArea
September 3, 2008
September
09
Sep
3
03
2008
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT
GCUGreyArea Is prehistoric evolution by chance & necessity an established fact? Do we ever hear an earth scientist saying that a round earth is a fact as well established as chance & necessity turning bacteria into bureaucrats? The problem that Massimo Pigliucci and others of his ilk can't bring themselves to admit is that their evolutionary narrative is just that - a narrative. It isn't an established fact like a round earth or the force of gravity or continental drift or the laws of physics or chemistry. There's a really good reason why prehistoric evolution by chance & necessity has a never ending stream of critics. The reason is that it's eminently debatable and the so-called overwhelming evidence is nothing of the sort. DaveScot
September 3, 2008
September
09
Sep
3
03
2008
02:03 AM
2
02
03
AM
PDT
Needless to offer further commments on the first statement about the flat earth. Then he follows: "Education is, at its core, about two things: a) We want our students to have access to the best of what humanity has produced, be that in science, philosophy, literature, economics or what have you." Translation: We want kids to learn everything according to physicalism, because we are physicalists and we think this is the best thing yea! "b) We want to provide students with the necessary tools to engage in critical thinking and serious analysis of whatever claim comes under their scrutiny." So so, how can kids engage in critical thinking if they are denied access to both sides of a dispute? The guy has a PhD in philosophy right? was that under Dick to the Dawk?MaxAug
September 2, 2008
September
09
Sep
2
02
2008
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT
Massimo's analogy isn't quite right. You have to imagine trying to teach children that the Earth is round if they lived in a society where many of the authoritative figures they know say, "We think the earth is flat, but you should judge the evidence for yourself!" That would be somewhat more difficult I imagine ("I've seen photoshops more convincing than this series of images you keep showing me of your supposedly round Earth", "The aliens from Star Wars looked real on film too, but that doesn't mean they exist!").Jason1083
September 2, 2008
September
09
Sep
2
02
2008
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT
"...debate both sides" Why do people always assume that there are only two sides to arguments. He may have been making a reasonable point rather badly. Part of the purpose of education is to learn established 'facts'. We teach kids in history lessons that Germany lost world war two, what is the point in getting them to debate 'Both sides of the argument'? Sometimes there just isn't time to debate everything in class, otherwise you would spend your whole life in school. Do kids really need to learn about alternatives to electromagnetic, or newtons laws of motion. That's not to say that these things shouldn't be questioned but you need to learn about them first.GCUGreyArea
September 2, 2008
September
09
Sep
2
02
2008
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT
most kids would probably conclude that the earth is flat and at the center of the universe (after all, the sensorial evidence is overwhelming in favor of the flat-earth, Ptolemaic system)
What a ridiculous thing to say. Why is it that so many scientists think themselves so smart and everyone else a complete idiot?Borne
September 2, 2008
September
09
Sep
2
02
2008
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
most kids would probably conclude that the earth is flat and at the center of the universe (after all, the sensorial evidence is overwhelming in favor of the flat-earth, Ptolemaic system).
My son is almost four and he started asking questions about planet earth when he turned three. I used Google Earth to zoom out into space and back in order to demonstrate the roundness of the earth. I'm not sure he gets it completely just yet, but I would think that by five he should have a good grasp. Now, when I told him last week that "You can't go to the sun in a spaceship because its too hot", he replied "That's okay, we'll bring drinks!". So maybe I'll wait to present (the opposing) flat earth theory till he's in junior high or high school. Oh, and he won't be going to SUNY Stony Brook, since it seems the professors there have a very low opinion of young people.russ
September 2, 2008
September
09
Sep
2
02
2008
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT
I used a ball and a flashlight to explain day/night to my 5 year old. She grasped it just fine. Huge amounts of intelligence coupled with a lack of wisdom brings about many stupid ideas.ellijacket
September 2, 2008
September
09
Sep
2
02
2008
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply