|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
 Posted - 12/13/2002 : 08:57:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by NottyImp
One thing I would say in Fireballn's defence is that critical thinking and the Scienific Method can be hard. It shouldn't be, but because we mis-use and mis-understand so many scientific terms in everyday life, and because we're often not taught these disciplines at school in any depth, the rot sets in early and is hard to shift.
In fact, it's worse. If you were to use a search engine on "hypothesis theory", you would find sloppy definitions/usage to be pervasive. Hence my remarks in the Pseuodoscience.Science_Made_Stupid thread.
quote:
Originally posted by NottyImp
Right, you can tear *me* apart now, RD...  
Why would I do that? |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
 |
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2002 : 08:54:56 [Permalink]
|
I have a scientific training to degree level, but something that struck me a few years ago was that during my education from the age of 5 to 21 years, I was never taught any of the following in any formal sense:
1) Critical thinking.
2) The scientific method.
3) The history of science.
4) The philosophy of science.
I would say that the last three at least least should be mandatory modules on any science degree (and perhaps optinal on others?), but as far as I'm aware they aren't (at least in the UK).
|
"My body is a temple - I desecrate it daily." |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2002 : 09:36:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by NottyImp
I have a scientific training to degree level, but something that struck me a few years ago was that during my education from the age of 5 to 21 years, I was never taught any of the following in any formal sense:
1) Critical thinking.
2) The scientific method.
3) The history of science.
4) The philosophy of science.
I would say that the last three at least least should be mandatory modules on any science degree (and perhaps optinal on others?), but as far as I'm aware they aren't (at least in the UK).
NottyImp, I totally agree. You usually get a little bit of it in the majority of your courses but never enough to make it really sink in. You almost have to go out of your way to take non-required electives like philosophy of science, logic, scientific history, or scientific writing classes to really get a full dose of these critical issues. Why these are not required is beyond me. This is especially true of critical thinking. Its almost like they think its a natural skill that you either have or you don't so why bother teaching it. It is quite distressing. 
By the way the condition seems to be the same here in the U.S. as well. |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2002 : 11:25:34 [Permalink]
|
One reason that science/engineering majors often fail to take history/philosophy of science courses is the bitter competition for grade point average. Just as non-science majors avoid math and science courses, science majors often shun the humanities. When a course isn't directly related to the major, students avoid it so a poor grade won't drag down their GPA.
Some schools (at least in the US) have tried to address this concern by allowing students to take out-of-major courses on a pass-fail basis. I think that's a good approach, as long as (A) there's at least some requirement to take them, and (B) it's not overly easy to pass. Making the course a "gut" doesn't do any good for anybody.
|
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
