Chanakya
,
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 5,811
I think I have misconstrued your earlier response. Yes, with all the misinformation students are being subjected to via the media, courses for critical thinking in general does sound like a good idea.
However, my original response was to the article that reportedly claims that the GOP wants creationism taught in science classes as "valid science". To me critical thinking in a science class means understanding the scientific method and not accepting any unevidenced theory as a fact. Critical thinking in science is a more specialized area than critical thinking in general.
That's what happens when a mod creates a strawman title. They now have you believing that I want what the GOP wants.I had requested a title like "Should science classes include critical thinking?" but for some strange reason they want to paint me as pro-creationist teaching.
Then you're being disingenuous, and the mods have ensured you stay honest in spite of yourself.
Here's why I say this:
First, even if you wish to keep out discussion about introducing critical thinking similarly in other subjects like history and literature and civics and religious studies, even then, and even within science, there's lots of things to which the same logic, of applying critical thinking and working out the theory from first principles, might apply; and yet you're raising this issue only in terms of this stupid creationism nonsense, and none of the other areas in science. So that a title that says "Should science classes include critical thinking" is singularly inappropriate, and the title the mods have elected to put in reflects your actual intent.
Second, even if one were to focus on only religious superstitions vis-a-vis what's taught in science, then the obvious solution is to discuss it, yes, and make sure that the concerned students' difficulties are addressed; but one very reasonable way to do it would be by introducing special correctional classes for kids that are uniquely challenged in terms of critical thinking by virtue of having had the misfortune to be born to and raised in superstitious families that subscribe to cockeyed belief systems. And yet when I raise this excellent solution that follows from a discussion on "Should science classes include critical thinking about religious superstitions?", then you accuse me of not engaging in good faith, and actually have the gall to tell me not to raise this subject in future. So that it is only under the narrow limits that mods have set for this discussion via that title that your POV even makes sense; only under these limits is your intent, although cockeyed, at least honestly presented.
Third, even if one were to grant you the rest of your warped arguments, even then, even when we focus on specifically creation myths vis-a-vis evolution, I've myself pointed out to you at least three times --- and others may have as well, on top of that --- that this would then necessarily need to also include creation myths from other major religions as well, like Buddhism, and Daoism, and Hinduism, as well as maybe somewhat smaller religions like Shintoism and Jainism --- even if time constraints keep us from discussing a larger collection of religious myths. Yet you steadfastly ignore this suggestion, and keep your going back to your line about Genesis, as if Christian creation myths are the only superstitions that large numbers of people subscribe to. Clearly, then, your focus is only on Creationism, and not even on general creation myths from religions. Your own suggested title, then, is no more than a fig leaf to hide your true intentions; and it is the mods that are keeping you honest in spite of yourself.
(Of course, if even now you agree to include in your proposal other creation myths and superstitions from other major religions, other than merely the Abrahamic ones, then I'll be happy to take back that last criticism (#3). The other criticisms I've raised here will continue to apply, and I'll continue to think of your proposal as utterly cockeyed and continue to disagree with it in the specific form in which you've presented it *, but I'll be happy to roll back that last criticism of mine, that like some closed-minded bigot you're focused only and solely on Christian superstitions, if even now you include those other creation myths from those other religions in your proposal.)
* I've put in that qualification, saying that "I'm opposed to your proposal in the form you present it", because I'm perfectly fine with my own amendment to your proposal, my amended proposal that addresses the issue you raise. To repeat, that would involve profiling students to weed out those whose parents subscribe to cockeyed religious superstitions, and are likely to have infected these kids with said supersitions; and holding correctional classes for these students, so that they can be clearly shown how utterly ridiculous their parents' beliefs are, and so that they do not carry those imbecile beliefs with them to the science class, and are able to attend to science class with a mind no longer infected with the imbecilic beliefs of their parents. In that amended form I'm perfectly willing to support your proposal of introducing critical thinking when it comes to religious superstitions as they apply to science class --- except outside of science class itself, and in special correctional classes. And hey, you've already agreed with me, upthread, that you're open to having these critical thinking lessons being held outside of science class, so perhaps you may yet find yourself able to applaud my proposed amendment to your proposal?
Last edited:
