While God Is Watching:

Teaching Scientific and Critical Thinking to Young Teens

Every classroom is an incredible mix of students from many different personal, cultural and religious traditions.  Teachers have to teach to all of these traditions and disrespect none of them.  Carefully sticking to subject matter avoids many conflicts in these areas but inquisitive students have a way of bringing the ideas that matter most to them (their traditions) to the classroom, whatever the official subject matter.

Consider for a moment all the individual creation stories, particular to each religion.  How does one teach the scientific “creation” story and other aspects of science to these many different students?

It is common in skeptical and scientific circles to argue with and disparage belief in God (e.g. Richard Dawkins’ book, “The God Delusion” and Michael Shermer’s article, “Is God Dying?” scientificamerican.com/article/is-god-dying/).  There are hundreds of books and thousands of articles in which scientists question the belief in God.  For scientists and especially for science educators, this is a fool’s errand, but this kind of confrontation is very popular right now.

The rationale is that if one is going to question ideas and beliefs for which there is no measurable scientific evidence, like flying saucers, ghosts and psychics, then why not go to the heart of the matter and question a basic belief of most people, the belief in God.

This is all well and good when adults get together to question, explore, educate, argue different points of view and learn.  Dr. Harriet Hall does a good analysis of how to talk to someone who is mixing their personal beliefs and science in this post:  https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/answering-cancer-quackery-the-sophisticated-approach-to-true-believers/

However, questioning and arguing basic belief systems is absolutely not appropriate when teaching children. Teaching young children is sacred ground, a careful intrusion into the relationship between parent and child.  Parents and society have let teachers enter this sacred ground only after a careful vetting process.

A young teen has usually developed their sense of self into a belief system of some sort.  It may be religious or it may not but it explains their world and their relationship to their world.  What these children don’t have at this age is an adult system of knowledge, a large amount of experience and a variety of different technical skills, so their belief systems are more important and essential to them because that’s how they make meaning at this point in their lives.

In this context, arguing with a child over personal beliefs is not appropriate for two reasons:

–  Childrens’ beliefs are tied to their sense of self which no teacher has any business questioning and which is properly the realm of parental influence.

–  Teachers should be teaching subject matter, technical skills and how to use that subject matter in practical application and should not be teaching their personal opinions and beliefs about religion or politics.

In past years, there have been Young Earth Creationist students in my classes.  These religious beliefs are antithetical to the study of biology, since the scientific theory of Evolution is the cornerstone of biology.  So what happens in these situations?  The teacher must draw clear lines between personal belief and the scientific discussion of evidence.  Also, the teacher must defend the student’s right to their personal beliefs even while curtailing their discussion in science class.

As a society, we are very careful to separate church and state (that is, religion and politics) because of the obvious pitfalls that this has caused historically and even presently (Crusades and Jihads).  In addition, we also separate out the relatively new “third rail” of American life: Science.  We have a wonderfully tolerant society in which scientists can be deeply religious, religious people can be expertly scientific and anyone can be of any political party.  Most people in our society, who are not radicalized by their belief system, will usually take evidence based, scientific explanations as far as they will go and then assign any further explanations to the Deity.  This relationship, between science and religion, seems to work pretty well for many people.

This paragraph from Steve Novella’s article, “Trying to Impose Religion on Medicine”, (https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/), correctly outlines the separation between science and religion:

“One of the major themes of science-based medicine (unsurprisingly) is that medicine should be based on science. We consider ourselves specialists in a larger movement defending science in general from mysticism, superstition, and spiritualism. We are not against anyone’s personal belief, and are officially agnostic toward any faith (as is science itself), but will vigorously defend science from any intrusion into its proper realm.”

Some teachers can divert from course material to teach their personal religious beliefs and political opinions.  Their personal beliefs might be great ideas like the political environmental movement or the religious Great Peace of Gandhi but the specifics don’t really matter.  The course, whatever the subject, can quickly become an opinion and belief class, to the detriment of the students’ learning the course methodology and material.

In college, my son was repeatedly told in History and Political Science classes that he should vote the Democratic Party line and that if he didn’t, he was beyond ignorant and consigning the country to a fate worse than death, etc.  The fact that most college professors identify as Democrats should not affect the teaching of historical or political science material and methodology.

Good teachers teach methodology and skills and then leave it up to the students to find their way, questioning and balancing opposing points of view.

At a recent science conference, a young college professor asked a panel, “How does one keep from arguing beliefs when trying to teach a science class?” My answer to that question would be to create a safe, non-threatening environment for class discussion and never to argue with students about their beliefs. This is how I do it:

“Your beliefs are your own.  No one can tell you what to believe, least of all me”.

“This is a class about evidence, how to examine it and how to question it.  The entire process of science is directed at attempting to remove belief, opinion and personal experience from the examination of evidence.”

“Learn the Science and believe what you want.  You’re going to do that anyway.”

This works well with children but the larger point here is that science oriented people shouldn’t be arguing against people’s deeply held beliefs, whether those people are children or adults.  Arguing against a person’s life long belief in their God or their religion is a lose/lose, zero sum argument and pointless conversation.  As Neil deGrasse Tyson said, when chiding Richard Dawkins about his acerbic style in his role as a science educator, “You can attract more bees with honey than with vinegar”.

Even when Jehovah’s Witnesses come to my door (two or more adults, ready, willing and able to talk about religion), I don’t argue with them about their religion or their bible.  I try to engage them about how they know what they know and how they are examining evidence.  Topics like circular reasoning, self-validation and removing personal bias from an investigation form the core of my discussion.  My wife says that we are the only home from which the frustrated Witnesses eventually flee, “He’s more committed than a Mormon: he’s a scientist!”

Most people are very willing to separate Science and how the world works from their personal religious beliefs.  Talking about scientific methodology, how it works and how it doesn’t work, how to examine evidence and how we can often deceive ourselves by confirming our own biases, leaves an adult or a child with the proper tools to make their own meaning out of their relationship to the world.

 

Victor Dominocielo, M.A. 7/1/2015

Victor Dominocielo, M.A., a California-credentialed teacher for 38 years, is the human biology and health teacher at a local school.  He earned his Master of Arts degree in Education from UCSB.  The opinions expressed are his own.

 

 

 

 

Scientific Literacy

 

Two scientists from Lawrence Livermore Labs (LLL) excitedly called James Randi (James Randi Educational Foundation) and said that he would have to forfeit the one million dollar prize money that he offers for proof of any psychic phenomenon.  In this case the scientists had “verified” an instance of telekinesis using only the power of the mind.  Randi listened to their description and was immediately able to duplicate the trick that had fooled the PhD physicists.  That video is available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbwWL5ezA4g.

 

LLL is chock full of the best scientists on earth.  It is the poster child for Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) education which is currently emphasized in our school system.  The scientists who were fooled by the magicians trick are outstanding engineers, chemists and physicists in their particular fields of study.

 

But isn’t there something very wrong with this situation: PhD level scientists who can’t tell the difference between an astounding brain function discovery and a simple magic trick?  My 13 year old students would have known immediately that they were observing a trick.  They might not have known how to explain the trick but they would have known that it was a trick by simply asking the, “What’s more likely?” question.  What am I more likely observing, a new superpower of the mind or a magicians trick?

 

I can only conclude that being awarded a PhD in a scientific field of study is no guarantee of scientific literacy.  I can only fault myself and other science educators for producing PhD level scientists who are not able to distinguish between scientific and non-scientific processes.  This is a blatant lapse of basic science education.

“It is possible for a student to accumulate a fairly sizable science knowledge base without learning how to properly distinguish between reputable science and pseudoscience”. (“Science Education Is No Guarantee of Skepticism”, Walker, Hoekstra, Vogel), http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-03-07/#feature

Instead of being taught a broad understanding of the use of scientific thinking in everyday life, these scientists are the product of an educational system that focuses on the narrow application of laboratory skills.  Experimental laboratory skills are certainly very important but not at the expense of ignoring the application of scientific thinking in all areas of life.  What is needed is an appreciation and an in depth understanding of Scientific Literacy.

 

Scientific literacy is a functional competency in the methodology of science.  In a practical sense, it is comprised of:

 

• Awareness of the strengths and weaknesses of the basic tool used to gather scientific information: your brain. Includes common cognitive mistakes and fallacies which influence the gathering of scientific evidence.
• Ability to recognize the difference between scientific and non-scientific processes.
• Ability to apply the scientific process in the observation and examination of evidence.
• Ability to evaluate the quality of scientific information on the basis of its source and methods.

Ask any science teacher about the most important and critical skill in science and each and every one of us would definitively say, “experimentation”.  As this rationale became incorporated into our educational system over the last forty years, experimentation became the be all, end all, must do all, hands-on splinter skill.  Sacrificed on the altar of “laboratory experimentation” was the rich history, development and the how and why of scientific thinking in everyday life that is, scientific literacy.  “Science education, in its current form, seems to do little to offset pseudoscientific beliefs, and may in fact give students reason to accept science fiction as science fact”, (Walker, et. al, 2012).

Every science course at every educational level should be teaching scientific literacy.  Even   coursework in non-science courses like English, history and social studies should include a generalized scientific methodology that can be applied to any question, investigation and the gathering of evidence in any field of study.  Questions like: “How do historians gather evidence?”; “What are the hypotheses surrounding the writings of Shakespeare?”; “How do psychologists gather evidence given that people feel, believe and misperceive?”.

In sciences courses, after being exposed to the specific experimental methodology in that field, students should learn the developmental history of that science, how mistakes were made and how scientific methodology kept pointing scientists to a more accurate understanding of our world.

The next stage of a deep and robust science education should include how the brain processes information and the strengths and weaknesses of this incredible tool.  Understanding the limits of perception, memory and common cognitive fallacies produces a student less likely to fool themselves and confuse their beliefs and emotions with evidence.

Throughout every science class, students should learn how to examine the quality of evidence that they see every day on TV, computer and social media in the form of advertising that makes unsupportable claims.

Let’s give everyone a good “Baloney Detection Kit”, originally penned by Carl Sagan in his book, “The Demon-Haunted World” and refined here by Michael Shermer:

http://www.michaelshermer.com/2009/06/baloney-detection-kit/

1. How reliable is the source of the claim?
2. Does the source make similar claims?
3. Have the claims been verified by someone else?
4. Does this fit with the way the world works?
5. Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?
6. Where does the preponderance of evidence point?
7. Is the claimant playing by the rules of science?
8. Is the claimant providing positive evidence?
9. Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?
10. Are personal beliefs driving the claim?

 

There is so much lack of scientific literacy in our world today.  Sheer nonsense is given such credibility on the Discovery Channel, the History Channel and even National Geographic TV.  Everything from ghosts, witchcraft, Bigfoot, space aliens, drinkable sunscreen, magical alternative medicine, crop circles, astrology, psychic readings, pyramid powers, crystals and energy auras are given pseudoscientific plausibility.

Let’s start changing this situation by teaching our children sense from nonsense.  Let’s teach our children Scientific Literacy at every age and at every opportunity.

 

Victor Dominocielo, M.A.  7/18/14

Victor Dominocielo, M.A., a California-credentialed teacher for 37 years, is the Human Biology and Health teacher at a local middle school. He earned his Master of Arts degree in Education from UCSB. The opinions expressed are his own.

 

Scientific Literacy Definition from Wikipedia

“According to the United States National Center for Education Statistics, “scientific literacy is the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and processes required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity”.^[1] A scientifically literate person is defined as one who has the capacity to:

• understandexperiment and reasoning as well as basic scientific facts and their meaning
• ask, find, or determine answers to questions derived from curiosity about everyday experiences
• describe, explain, and predictnatural phenomena
• read with understanding articles about science in thepopular press and to engage in social conversation about the validity of the conclusions
• identify scientific issues underlying national and local decisions and express positions that are scientifically and technologically informed
• evaluate the quality of scientific information on the basis of its source and the methods used to generate it
• pose and evaluatearguments based on evidence and to apply conclusions from such arguments appropriately^[2]

The OECD PISA Framework (2015) defines scientific literacy as “the ability to engage with science-related issues, and with the ideas of science, as a reflective citizen.”^[3] A scientifically literate person, therefore, is willing to engage in reasoned discourse about science and technology which requires the competencies to:

• Explain phenomena scientifically – recognize, offer and evaluate explanations for a range of natural and technological phenomena
• Evaluate and design scientific inquiry – describe and appraise scientific investigations and propose ways of addressing questions scientifically.
• Interpret data and evidence scientifically – analyze and evaluate data, claims and arguments in a variety of representations and draw appropriate scientific conclusions.

Scientific literacy may also be defined in language similar to the definitions of ocean literacy,^[4]Earth science literacy^[5] and Climate Literacy.^[6] Thus a scientifically literate person can:

• understand the science relevant to environmental and social issues
• communicate clearly about the science
• make informed decisions about these issues

Finally, scientific literacy may involve particular attitudes toward learning and using science. A scientifically-literate citizen feels concerned about environmental and social issues, responsible to act on these issues, and empowered to use science as a tool in addressing these issues.”