Sep 09 2008
More Thoughts on a Wiki Science Textbook
Last week I discussed some ideas I had about what constitutes good science education and offered a suggestion that might improve the current state of science education. I appreciate all the feedback and discussion, which is exactly what I asked for. I recognize this is an extremely complex topic with no easy solution and so ideas from a variety of backgrounds is useful.
My premise for that post and this one is that science education is currently inadequate, as evidenced by the high level of scientific illiteracy in this country and to some extent more generally. Specifically most students seem to graduate high school without sufficient critical thinking skills and appreciation for the process of science.
On resource that might help, I suggested, is an online science curriculum that properly focuses on teaching scientific method and critical thinking in an engaging way.
Let me address some of the specific points that were raised.
The problem is not with textbooks.
Some pointed out that there are many challenges with the educational system that have nothing to do with textbooks, even to the point of suggesting that textbooks are irrelevant.
I completely agree that the problems with education go far beyond textbooks. There are problems with the quality of teachers, that too many science teachers do not have proper science training, that school boards and parents make too many and the wrong kind of demands upon school systems, that teacher’s unions block any attempt to reward quality or outcomes, many school systems are underfunded, and some teachers find it challenging just to maintain control of their classroom, let along get any teaching done. There are also societal problems, such as the media and an anti-intellectual culture.
My point, however, was not to address these broader issues, not to suggest that any one solution is a panacea or would fix all of these ills. But rather to improve the overall quality of science education by creating a freely accessible high quality resource. Arguing that providing a free online textbook won’t solve other problems with education is a non sequitur.
It was argued that textbooks are not much used. I have certainly heard from many science teachers that they do not use the provided textbooks but rather make up their own lesson plans or find their own sources. There are clearly many excellent science teachers out there teaching good science. The point of such a project, however, would be to help those science teachers who are not so self-motivated or skilled. We want to raise the overall quality of science education, which won’t necessarily increase the already high-end.
Many factual claims were made in the comments of my last entry. I tried to find reliable references to pin down some of them. Here is a good reference from the NEA (http://www.nea.org/nr/nr021008.html). It relates that 47% of teachers surveyed used textbooks daily. Most of those teachers base their teaching plans on the textbook. A third of teacher say they do not have enough textbooks for their students. And there is evidence linking having too few and outdated textbooks with poor outcome (although this can be simply a marker for overall funding, and not a direct effect). On average 1% of overall education budgets are spent on textbooks.
Clearly textbooks continue to play an important role in education and the quality and availability of textbooks are one factor that predict outcome.
There is also a clear consensus that the quality of science textbooks is very low. Here the AAAS evaluated middle school science textbooks and found almost all of them to be “unsatisfactory.”
Many teacher have told me that they do not use the textbooks because of the low quality. So it seems probable that more teachers would use science textbooks if they were available, up to date, and otherwise of high quality.
The Digital Divide
One reasonable point raised about an online textbook is the lack of access to computers and the internet in underfunded schools. Certainly, an online textbook is of no use if students and teachers cannot get online. This, however, is a separate problem (although a prerequisite one) that needs to be, and is being addressed.
This problem is generally referred to as the “digital divide” – the disparity of opportunity and education between those with internet access and those without. A wiki science textbook project would increase this divide – which is true about any valuable resource put on the internet. I think the best solution is to close the digital divide – and many agree.
Recent surveys show that 54% of Americans are online, and there are 2 million new users per month. There are efforts to put affordable laptops in the hands of all student, and there are many programs to donate used computers to schools. The digital divide is a largely fixable problem, one that will be fixed.
It is also increasingly clear that the repository of human knowledge is rapidly being transferred online. This is happening with or without a wiki-science initiative. There are also many opportunities for new types of learning interfaces and access to information online that are not afforded in textbooks – the integration of multimedia resources, for example.
This is happening. I think it would therefore make sense, rather than try to fix outdated textbooks, to put our efforts into a solution that will have en enduring impact. An online series of textbooks would, in a way, be the last textbook, as it could be continuously updated going forward. Having a textbook frozen in time is rapidly becoming a quaint notion.
For those school systems with limited access, teachers could have access to the textbook to create their lesson plans, or even print off material for their students. So this resource would be helpful even without every student having internet access.
Also, the 1% of the education budget going for textbooks can be redirected toward building an online infrastructure. This is likely to be increasingly cost effecting going forward.
These Resources Already Exist
Several commenters pointed to online science resources that already exist. I agree, there is already a great deal out there. One of the potential advantages of a dedicated online science curriculum is that it could pull together all these existing resources.
However, I could not find any existing resource that has the quality and thoroughness necessary to replace textbooks or improve the overall quality of science education. Wiki-books, for example, has many free online textbooks. I reviewed many of the science sections. They are of highly variable quality, overall structure, and completeness. I imagined myself a student in biology or physics and then tried to use this source as a textbook, reading through many sections. I found it difficult and confusing.
The BBC resource, Bitesize, is another example. It is a decent, although very basic and incomplete, resource. As the name implies, this seems more like science nuggets than a complete curriculum.
So pieces of an online science curriculum already exist, and more are being added every day. But nothing you can point to and say to a school district – you can use this rather than buy new science textbooks.
Also, I think such a project would be an opportunity to explore the ways in which a purely online resource can be used to organize instructional information and bring together multimedia resources. Typically when a new technology is developed it tends to duplicate the older technology that it replaces, but people eventually figure out new ways to use the technology. For example, when TV first became popular, radio shows were simply transplanted onto the TV. It took years for TV as a medium to come into its own.
What I see today primarily is the transplanting of print material, like textbooks, into the internet. I would like to see the exploration of how digital online media could be used without the constraints of a textbook format. For example – rather than having different level school books for different grades, each subject could be designed with increasingly deeper and more complex sections, and each grade (or even student) could dig as deep into the material as is appropriate.
Or – lesson plans could be independent from the material. The material can be stored systematically (like an encyclopedia) but then a lesson plan would link to parts of the material to build a grade-appropriate course.
These are just ideas – I would like to see what could emerge from a cooperate project of scientists and educators.
Scientists make lousy teachers.
This brings me to my last point – I wrote that part of the goal of such a project would be to allow scientists to teach science. But I was very careful to qualify this to “those with a special talent and inclination for teaching science.” So the point that some scientists cannot teach is irrelevant.
Also – I never meant to imply that scientists would be doing this alone, without educators. My premise is that in order to do a great job teaching science one needs to know science and be a good teachers. A scientists who cannot teach or a great teacher who does not understand science won’t cut it. I have encountered scientists who think their knowledge is enough, and I have encountered educators who think their ability to teach is enough. They are both wrong.
An alliance between working scientists with an inclination toward teaching and working teachers and other educators with an inclination toward science seems like a natural solution. This project could bridge the gap.
Conclusion
The problem of improving science education is clearly complex and I do not pretend that this type of project would even address, let alone solve, all problems. But I do think it could be a very useful component of improving science education. I also think that that pushing educational materials onto the internet is a natural and inevitable progression, so we might as well get it right.
But as I said in my original post – this is in the idea phase. In this phase critical feedback is very important – so keep it coming.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Print This Post
102 Responses to “More Thoughts on a Wiki Science Textbook”
The way information is constantly thrown at us these days having access in the classroom to not only the most up-to-date information, but also information outside realm of just one particular textbook, seems almost invaluable. I often wonder if having so much information instantly available plays a large role in our deteriorating ability to think critically. The best thing we can do at this point is separate the good and accurate information from the bad. I think wiki textbooks is an excellent way of doing that.
It’s true that shortcomings of science education involve much more complex problems involving education in general, and some of the comments to Dr. Novella’s last post illustrate them. I personally think standardized testing removes more critical thinking from learning than anything else. However, since standardized tests are the gauge we use to evaluate the effectiveness of educators and their methods, this our best tool to improve education at this time. I can agree with that statement.
However, I also think education is starting to slowly turn in a different direction. I’ll admit to not being familiar with the format at all, but I know that the SAT now includes a writing section. I can only assume this aids in evaluating the test takers critical thinking skills. Public education is being outsourced to private groups more and more. The point is, there are so many things wrong with education and so many ways to improve it. Of course a complete overhaul would be very beneficial, albeit unlikely. So it is the little steps that are most effective towards a goal of educational improvement in all subjects.
I believe more and more schools are going to be using unorthodox and experimental methods of teaching because they will see it working in other schools. Dr. Novella’s ideas and suggestions don’t solve every “problem” in science education out there, but the only way to solve ANY of the problems is come up with innovative approaches and then talk about them.
Thanks Dr. Novella, for revisiting this issue. I think we agree that science education is critical to the worlds future.
You have made good points, but I believe you are still missing my main point. Current textbooks, while on the shelf, and integrated into lesson plans, are *not* effective, as measured by standardized test results. If one spends time in a science classroom, one can easily see why — even the excellent texts like Ken Miller’s biology text, which is the best I have seen at highlighting important information, are way beyond the literacy level of their intended audience.
I still challenge you to present evidence for you main assertion — that more such inaccessible material is any kind of solution. (Or as was mentioned in your first blog, that classroom time spent on discussion or experimentation (getting hand dirty) increases the understanding and retention of science material by the average US science student. I am always skeptical of foregone conclusions.
As a bit of added information, as part of my graduate studies, I investigated using computers in the science classroom. As a very experienced computer scientist (20+) years, I was able put together a software package that was highly interactive, modeled after MySpace style web-sites, with self paced instruction, student and teacher driven wiki’s, computer generated quick-tests, and tons of multimedia links to (what was thought to be) exciting science information. Student progress was immediately reported teachers in the form of reports. You wiki idea would fit in perfectly with this. I have for now moved on to other projects, but would love to revisit it. The major reason I put the project on hold was the complete lack of computing resources in the schools. While a lot of money has been spent in this area, in the school district I am in (which is typical) the computers are out-of-date and sit in the corner gathering dust. The intranet barely works, and the internet bandwidth is less that I have at home (and it would need to server 1000+ students). So while schools report a high level of computing and internet capability, in reality it does not exist.
rc – You bring up very important concerns. I favor evidence-based educational approaches. There is evidence that hand-on activities improves outcome. I don’t have references handy, which is why I did not include them above, but my reading of the literature is that memory and understanding are enhanced by active vs passive learning, and by each sensory modality utilized (at least for hearing, visual, and tactile). Also – the best single predictor of understanding and retention is having to explain a concept to someone else – teaching. Therefore students should be made to digest, synthesize, and then teach concepts to their fellow students.
I will try to bring together some references, maybe for a later post.
I understand that literacy and adequate internet access are limiting factors. But I think that therefore we should improve literacy and internet access.
I also do not think we should wait until these factors reach some arbitrary level before we create online educational resources. I am interested in increasing science literacy for the most number of people. Since we are starting from about 5% science literacy I see no problem with picking the low hanging fruit. In other words, at least we should be providing quality science education to those students who are literate and have resources (while we are trying to improve literacy and access for the rest).
I acknowledge that there are some students who learn on their own and don’t need help. But there are also many students who are bright and have resources but still are scientifically illiterate, partly because the science they were taught in school from textbooks sucked. Let’s at least fix this problem.
To put things in perspective, you could argue that the SGU podcast is pointless and elitist because it only reaches the iPod crowd who already have an interest in science. What about all those poor kids without MP3 devices, computers, and internet access?
Rather, I think we should make use of all information technology out there, recognizing that no one outlet will reach everyone, and any technology-based information will inherently discriminate against those on the wrong side of the digital divide.
“even the excellent texts like Ken Miller’s biology text, which is the best I have seen at highlighting important information, are way beyond the literacy level of their intended audience.”
I think this is one of the areas where we need the input of educators instead of scientists. I wouldn’t expect a biologist or physicist to know how the vocabulary of a textbook for 10 year olds should differ from a textbook for 12 year olds, or at what age kids will be able to understand graphs. Scientists should be driving the “idea content” of the books, but I think the actual writers should be educators who have worked with hundreds or thousands of children in the age range the book is intended for.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who has found online science resources to be fragmentary and variable. I’ve tried to call attention to your idea, so maybe a few new interested parties will join in.
I think this is a great idea. for more another attempt of implementation of a similar idea you can try the MIT open courseware series.
I want to add though that I think something that needs to be addressed is that even though science is not just about memorizing facts and equations, some of science is indeed just that. The importance of knowing up to date theories and equations is important and should not be lost.
great article and comments. As a former elementary math/science teacher, I have a few ideas to add.
– Smart boards — school districts are buying them, maybe not the underfunded ones, but many are seeing the benefits to having an interactive projection tool linked to computers/internet. A new wiki science text should consider the possibilities for smart board users by providing interactive activities. Sure it’s not the same as doing a lab experiment, but depending on the objective of the lesson and the topic, smart board activities could make the wiki more appealing to teachers with new technology in their classroom.
– wiki labs? — what if the wiki described different experiments/activities for classrooms, then incorporated a way for students to input their results. They could then compare their results with those of students in various regions of the world and discuss the similarities and discrepancies. Online discussion in an educational setting could be a great way to get kids using the internet to communicate their ideas, as well as develop science writing skills. Not to mention all the cool graphs and charts that could be incorporated.
thanks Dr. Novella!
I have argued at length why I think this idea has great potential, and I’m glad Steve has returned to the subject. I agree wholeheartedly with his points.
So I’m just going to get carried away with the intricacies of it.
I love the wiki-labs suggestion. One of the problems with science education that is continually bandied about is that experiments that students do are just repeat tests with foregone conclusions. we would watch my chemistry teacher perform an experiment then go do it trying to get the same results. woohoo.
When my wife was at school, one of their classes involved investigating some cookie brand who claimed to have a specific number of chocolate chips in each cookie. They did some basic research, counting the chocolate chips and found that they invariably came up short. They wrote to the company or to some watchdog and the claim was removed from the advertising.
I have no reason not to believe this. But maybe they did the experiment because the teacher had heard it had been done somewhere else. It could be an urban myth even. But nevertheless, my wife remembers it because it gave her a nugget of critical thinking. It was an experiment that the students at least did not know the outcome of.
I bring it up because I think that original experiments – which dont have to eb at the cutting edge of science – can be performed by students, and the suggested wiki-labs is a great way for results to be pooled. Kids could learn about the importance of being able to replicate tests, and of meta analysis. I think that’s a really interesting concept.
I agree with the smart board integration as well. The curriculum shouldnt be designed as just an encyclopedia but with interactive pages for a series of platforms. Inthe way that rc described the project he worked on.
-interactive quizzes for one student per terminal. (maybe even homework assignments – although that opens up the can of worms of requiring internet access at home – “I couldnt do my homework, miss, cos the internet went down.”
-lesson plans for all different levels that refer to the encyclopedia can be printed
-video clips of demonstrations, walkthroughs, etc. videos could be shown such as captain dissillusion investigates – and students could offer explanations for what the real explanation is. Then break downs could be shown.
-research puzzles could be created. where students need to use research skills to trawl through the encyclopedia to solve a problem.
The potential is so much greater than boring old text books. And I think, there’s nothing to lose with this idea. It is just updating an anachronistic teaching aid. it seems inevitable anyway so why not do it right first round instead of waiting until a complete overhaul is needed to do this as well.
i by no means think my science education in England was superior to anyones here. But there are two things that I think are superior. There are perhaps good arguments against this though.
They are going a bit off topic – as they do not address a science wiki. But they are about improving science ed.
Timetabling for the week instead of for 5 repeated days. This allows double science, for example, a common turn of phrase in England that is unheard of here (at least in the schools I have experience with). (Whats the principal behind repeating the same schedule every day?)
And teaching the 3 scientific disciplines concurrently. I was taught biology, chemistry and physics as separate classes, but at the same time.
My wife was taught just biology. she never progressed beyond biology so never had the option of taking chemistry and certainly not physics.
Why is biology a pre-requisite for chemistry (a pre-requisite for physics)?
This might not happen in all schools/districts/states. But it just seems crazy to me. either all student should study all three sciences, or one combined science should be taught where age-appropriate information from each discipline is included in the syllabus.
Just one point of interest when it comes to education with online materials…
Before a student can be expected to use online material (even educational material vetted by the school system) they must be taught how to evaluate the reliability of information. I have seen with my older kids (two in high school, one in college) that they still often give equal weight to various websites. For instance, one daughter wanted to start using a tanning salon. I asked her to find me reliable sources showing what the risks are. In 10th grade, she still hadn’t been shown that information from the Tanning Society was not as accurate as information from the CDC when evaluating risks of tanning.
I’m all for using the internet to the fullest extent possible in education. I think it’s not only necessary, but inevitable. But before we start using the internet for as the basis of science education, we need to educate the kids on how to use the resource properly.
Kids in general know that information found in an encyclopedia in the library is more accurate than information found in a tabloid newspaper. But they don’t necessarily know what is accurate on the web.
#superdave on 09 Sep 2008 at 2:08 pm {snip}
“I want to add though that I think something that needs to be addressed is that even though science is not just about memorizing facts and equations, some of science is indeed just that. The importance of knowing [some facts, Joe] must not be lost.”
I was so enthused that I let that pass on the first post. It is true that science is not just a method- it is also the results derived from that method. The two are easily united (IMHO).
There is a balance that needs to be achieved: letting kids develop the facts of millenia-old knowledge competes with understanding (in a timely fashion) how internal combustion engines work.
That is a constant struggle.
Alex –
You ideas on research puzzles, etc are spot on with what I was trying to develop. What I did not stress in my previous post, was that behind all the front end (what the student saw) was a back-end server constantly analyzing the data on a statistical basis in an attempt to try to determine which computer methodologies resulted in the best results, as measured by a number of metrics — quiz scores, rate of progress, etc.
The basic setup was this — the students would pick up a laptop on the way into the class from a charging station. On sitting down, they would log in (which would also take roll) and then be presented with an interesting media clip to get their minds going. All content was generated by the server, which would deliver custom content, based on a pre-determined workflow for each student. Diligent progress would be rewarded with music, chat, etc.
Very good students could advance to as difficult material as they wished, without waiting for other students. The instructor, monitoring workflows from the instructor computer, could interrupt for a regular lecture, or chat privately with individual students. They controlled the workflow.
That was the idea anyway. I developed the client-server software, the next step was content/metrics and a good testbed, with controls.
One day maybe.
Your ideas might be good for younger kids who can be manipulated and need to foster their forward progress though a reward system of some sort. Regular, average kids mainly.
But I will bet that given 5 classes of junior/senior students in any science subject (biology, chemistry or physics) with only a chalkboard, or over head projector or something similar with no slick computer software or what have you, that my kids will be able to prove more knowledge and thinking/problem skills than anyone elses using all the technology in the world at their finger tips and five equal or similar classes of the same subject.
Outside all the cultural issues which undermine teaching, one central idea that has become lost is that learning can be fun in and of itself, that the feeling of joy or accomplishment that comes from acquiring knowledge is the thing that drives learning to the greatest extent.
A good teacher can get students to that level if left unimpeded by society or parents or administrators. Very little technology needed.
After that, they will have the motivation to teach themselves with only a little guidance, which should be the goal of all teachers. If I can get them to the point where they no longer need me, then I have accomplished my task.
ntwk2007 claims –
that my kids will be able to prove more knowledge and thinking/problem skills than anyone elses using all the technology in the world at their finger tips and five equal or similar classes of the same subject.
You are free to get a teaching credential and give it a try.
But first make sure the interpreters can understand you. You will be teaching to 3 different languages (Spanish/Hmong/English). They will be unable to read what you write on the board. Oh, and they are only in class 3 days a week — the other 2 they are in the fields supporting their family, working 16 hour days. Except for the ones with the electronic bracelets. They just got out of juvenile hall.
But take heart, this is only 80% of your class. The other 20% are smarter than you.
Some suggestions perhaps worth debating:
1. Start with a pilot project of limited scope. Try to build materials for one year’s worth of science class first, perhaps the “Integrated Science” taught in middle schools (so that people from many fields can contribute).
2. Once the basic curriculum framework has been mapped out, aim for a “frozen” edition and set a deadline: “In one year, we’ll have a product which we’ll be proud to print in a book or burn to a disc.” Otherwise, areas of the project will remain fallow.
3. Find someone who can make the project their top priority. Even if it’s just a JREF intern copying and pasting material from project volunteers’ blogs, somebody has to keep the machine chugging.
4. Don’t call your project a “wiki”. That’s just the name of a software tool which is useful for collaborative editing. The content which gets built up won’t stay in a wiki: to be useful in schools, the text or subsets of it will eventually have to be put on paper. Not all the content will necessarily be generated in a wiki, either: you might “prime the pump” by getting science bloggers to donate posts they’ve written in the past, and those bloggers might be recruited to fill gaps in the lesson materials by writing new posts. A wiki might serve as the central clearing-house for the project, but the project as a whole would be much larger.
I must have missed something in this thread. What is Hmong?
Must be something ethnic from the inner city getto’s or am I not even close?
I do speak from a little experience though, having taught since 1978 both HS and College level science from inner city to a school system considered the top in the country. Didn’t like that one too much.
And usually, much more than 80% of my students are ultimately smarter than myself, they just don’t know it yet or only found out much later when the principles I instilled into them came to fruition and they discovered what my true intent was, to make them aware of the total lack of need of teachers to learn and grow.
My latest student with electronic bracelets, an ankle bracelet to be specific, was a student I had prior to have said tracking device. This student had then made the ultimate discovery that productivity in a school environment was much more inviting than a jail cell. He found his niche and now attends university college nearby. Wants to be an attorney I hear. One success, many failures for that school district.
I like the idea of electronic computer enhanced learning. Most students these days are quite comfortable with computers and the internet and will find this a great attention getter and possibly be their forte in a classroom. The self paced aspect is also good. Some of the most difficult to handle in a classroom are by far the most intellegent and capable. You just have to break through their culture, if you want to call it a culture.
My first year in an inner city school I was sure they were beyond any point of no return and hopelessness. I might have been right, but a few will find their way. I was convinced then, even back to 1978, that the best hope for these kids was to take them away from their parents and raise them apart from that wasted environment. I might also have been right about that for many of the students. And it is much, much worse now.
The greatest success that might occur now would be to get them to figure “it” out and raise them to at least a 3rd or 4th grade level by the time they “graduate”, which the school system is going to do, one way or the other, no matter what their abilities are. That is assuming they are not in jail before they get to that point.
But I digress.
One of the points that Blake Stacey has raised on his blog entry in response to this blog entry:
“The question is really, how do we get people to feel that making educational materials is a fun use of their free time?”
The SkepticWiki is a fine example of that. Less than a handful regularly contribute. And that’s a generous statement, by the way…
I’m wondering how many skeptics are really talking to science teachers out there, about what they have and what they want? It was one of the aspects that creating a network on the Google group ‘Critical Teaching’ was interested in, by actually talking to teachers themselves about what they know is already in progress and what works. Let alone avoiding overworking teachers and tapping into existing resources and resource-makers?
I think I understand what you mean RC. You must be in southern California.
I can’t imagine.
You ever had a student tell you about the shoot out in the library in his inner city Detroit HS, complete with automatic weapons and explosives. Amazing.
I had another student come by to say good by, that he was a list to be extinguished as he put it. Never saw him again.
Educational theory is really a silly thought in light of what we are dealing with in the classrooms these days. I only teach now in the JC but I continue to hear the stories.
But you know, if a kid is willing to work 16hr days in the fields helping their families make a living, then just imagine what they could do giving that same effort in a learning environment.
nwtk2007 – since I’m researching retention and engagement in schools – the comments I made in this post might be of interest to you that relate to that experience:
http://podblack.com/?p=894
And one thing that has come to mind, echoed by another teacher: ‘Yes, but what will these ideas look like in action beyond the confines of enthusiastic, well funded collectives?’. Or just how realistic is it to think that we can so easily dictate what’s going on in the science curriculum…? Ah dear, these questions plague me…
I also wonder about how easy it is to restrict teachers (or even departments or schools ‘on their behalf’) from ’selecting’ what there is from the resources, as demonstrated in the NYT news item on creationism/evolution in the science classes in Florida: http://tinyurl.com/faithscience
“With no school policy to back him up, he spent less time on the subject than he would have liked. And he bit back his irritation at Teresa Yancey, a biology teacher down the hall who taught a unit she called “Evolution or NOT.””
[...] Steven Novella continues talking about how to improve science education [...]
Blake Stacey wrote:
“Don’t call your project a “wiki”.”
This is something I thought too. But for different reasons. I think ‘wiki’ is misleading. it gives the following impression:
“science bloggers… might be recruited to fill gaps in the lesson materials by writing new posts.”
I dont see it as a wiki at all, its a collaborative encyclopedia sure, but all specifically written, its not just blog entries that are collected together. Itd be commissioned lesson plans, curricula, and multimedia. Perhaps integrated as an interactive project the way rc_moore has described with student tracking functionality.
Wiki is also un-authoritative. citing wikipedia is already frowned upon and making an online encyclopedia that is meant to be infallible would only confuse the issue. I dont see why branding it differently would cause a problem anyway. (except that some projects fail simply because they are poorly branded)
“The content which gets built up won’t stay in a wiki: to be useful in schools, the text or subsets of it will eventually have to be put on paper.”
I think this misses the point too. This is an opportunity to move away from paper and into a wholly digital medium. Temporarily, while the infrastructure catches up with the technology it would provide say, PDF worksheets, and lesson plans for teachers to distribute and run classes with. This kind of printing out is at one end of the spectrum though. At the other end are schools where every student uses their own computer terminal and their progress is even tracked that way. between those two extremes are the majority of schools where teachers can draw on lesson plans, students can complete worksheets online in class, and as homework, where a comprehensive resource of multimedia references is accessed for video demonstrations, scientific articles and information, visual aids such as graphs; where data tracking from nationwide classroom experiments is coordinated.
It is a misconception to imagine this is a skeptical project akin to skepticwiki. this would be a government initiative to improve the delivery of up to date science curricula. (And I suspect all other classes too eventually)
So…
The question ISN’T “really, how do we get people to feel that making educational materials is a fun use of their free time?”
The contributors would be compensated for their efforts. I’ve suggested as one possibility that it is built into university professor’s tenures, and that universities have departments that administrate the resource. But it could be farmed out to a company like Encarta for example, who would jump at the chance of that kind of rejuvenation.
(of course this is my vision of it. but I think anything less ambitious is a waste of time. it has to come from the top)
Scientists make lousy scientists…
Excuse me if I missed something – from my view you’ve identified the following factors in science literacy:
- Textbook quality (which is poor)
- Teacher quality (those with less knowledge or skills rely on textbooks)
- Available resources (which are scattered and vary in quality)
…and suggested that an online resource that incorporates content with activities designed specifically for education might be helpful.
I think that the only thing that separates this idea from all of the textbook “companion” sites, “homework helper” sites, and all of the other “interactive learning” sites is the collaborative (wiki-style) approach to content that you’ve suggested.
I also think that is what might make it work.
Wikipedia has shown that the collaborative approach to content actually improves the quality of the information. I don’t believe it’s the freedom to edit that does this, but rather the discussions over accuracy.
Get input from anyone and everyone, but allow open debate over the content.
Although science itself relies on peer-review and defense of one’s assertions in open debate, it does not occur easily, quickly, or without politics. The result is a painfully slow corrective process that lets bad science into texts and minds from which it is very difficult to remove.
Regarding content, the biggest problems in science education are not whether students learn the periodic table or how to calculate velocity. The biggest problem is that very few are learning how to think. Very few are learning anything about the philosophy of science or how we acquire knowledge.
What’s worse is that most teachers don’t understand it (although most think they do) and most textbooks on the topic are shockingly incorrect. I am constantly amazed at the illogical and incorrect explanations of fundamental concepts like randomization, comparisons, and validity that appear in ALL undergraduate research methods texts.
These texts are written by scientists, which kind of explains why so much published research is seriously methodologically flawed.
What is desparately needed is content that teaches critical evaluation of the origins of ideas and knowledge to elementary and high school students. By the time they get to me (mostly graduating seniors in college), they don’t WANT to think and they are so accustomed to being told what is true that they are unable to judge anything for themselves objectively.
Steve – I think this second post is getting closer to the reality of science education and your ideas are beginning to shape up – however I still think the textbook idea is probably not quite on the right track. (I’m not saying don’t try btw – I just have a different slant.)
Textbooks (as far as I know) need to fit to particular science syllabus documents and as such, to write a “one size fits all” wikibook for all the various school boards is unlikely to be successful. Let alone covering the varied content.
I think “scientific facts” are well enough covered on the web already. You can find excellent online learning objects and even texts on most areas of science. Here’s a crap load (mainly physics because that’s what I do), some of which are outstanding:
http://preparatorychemistry.com/
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
http://www.saburchill.com/physics/physics_hp.html
http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph11e/index.html
http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/Physics/
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/Phys/Class/BBoard.html
http://www.physclips.unsw.edu.au/
http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/pathdiscovery.html
http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/super/physics_tut/contents.html
I’d guess there’s plenty of similarly good stuff out there for other areas too.
What you don’t find (well, I don’t) is something aimed at teaching epistemology of science – especially at lower grades. And this seems to be what you are most worried about and it’s what all the research says is the most valuable and where the syllabuses are headed where I work. (I’m no longer teaching but rather, writing syllabus documents for science for my state – Queensland, Australia – I have a very big interest in this, needless to say.) What would be very useful would be some online resources that help teachers do this.
A quick thought is something like a “chapter” about, say, the principles of evidence based medicine (e.g., examples of double-blind randomized trials), and work with a teacher or teachers on creating a unit of work (with lesson plans, learning experiences, suggested assessments, etc,) aimed at say 9th grade– that could then be put online. This is a manageable task that could be completed in a reasonable period of time which could be trialled in a local school and progressively modified (things don’t work perfectly the first time…). People could then take this as is, or modify it to suit their own needs, or use portions of it. Working with practicing teachers is essential if you want to have a reasonable chance of your work being at the right cognitive level, of interest to children and practical for most schools to implement. This could be done as a wiki – but I’d suggest selecting people to do it, rather than getting “randoms”.
The same idea could apply to any area of science and would then be of great general use. The idea would be to focus, not on the content, but the general principles of scientific investigation – controlled variables, statistical significance, repeatability, evaluation of data, precision in measurement, etc. This should be in all science curricula – no matter where it’s taught.
If this model worked, it could then be “shipped out” and replicated across most key learning areas and year levels.
The main problem with this – besides organising it and actually writing it! – would be to “get it out there”. Ideally you’d instigate a program, have funding to do professional development etc. (But you never know, it might go viral on its own…)
The other way in which you and other scientists and educators can be involved is to get onto curriculum committees and have an actual input into the documents that tell teachers what to teach. I don’t know how it works in various states in the US, but over here we have public consultations and representatives from various sectors (primary, secondary, independent, government, tertiary, private…) work on documents together. These documents should then be the basis of any textbooks created. I have a feeling things are far more political in the US than over here, so this idea might not be as realistic…
Last, but by no means least, you could have a local impact by running professional development sessions for teachers on skepticism and the application of scientific thinking as a general way of developing an educated society of “life-long-learners”. Schools are always looking for gurus to come in to run seminars (and it’d be a nice little earner). You could even do an “Al Gore” and train up many skeptics to do this. Something like Richard Saunder’s Mystery Investigators. One of the best services anyone can do for science is to get kids enthused.
For my last point I’ll mention what you say about critical thinking. I actually think this is something that should be across the curriculum. In science classes – even the good ones – we teach students to think critically about scientific investigations, but not about arguments (scientific or not). Some concepts such as cherry picking, post hoc and confirmation bias might come up, but science teachers aren’t going to mention straw men and impugning motives (for example). We also generally conduct investigations that do show some effect – e.g., measure the force on a current carrying conductor in a magnetic field, you find F = BIL sin theta. (This is why I always tried to fit in at least one lesson testing astrology to show science shows what isn’t so more often than what is so – but we’re hardly going to waste all our precious class time on what isn’t so!). A lot of the errors in thinking we, as skeptics, come across is people assuming a causal relationship where there isn’t one (or they have no reliable evidence that there is one).
I think learning about informal logic and fallacies would be ideally placed in the English curriculum (once students have mastered the use of possessive apostrophes of course!). Unfortunately, over here at least, the English curriculum is dominated by post-modernism (Marxist and feminist criticism, structuralism and post-structuralism). I.e., they look at how a text is put together, the ideological standpoint and “invited“ and “alternate” readings, but never mind if someone’s argument is internally consistent or not! Okay, now I’m getting OT and I could really go on a rant over this…
I hope I’ve given you (and everyone else) some more food for thought!
Related news, Virginia is looking for contributions to an open-source physics textbook:
Ok, website here: http://www.technology.virginia.gov/TechnologyNews/index.cfm?id=770
The internet really could use a standard for comment html.
nwtk2007 on 09 Sep 2008 at 11:11 pm wrote “I do speak from a little experience though …”
I think you are the subject of this movement, with more than a little experience. If you had an adequate, K-12 science education you would not have gone to chiropracty school. And the at-large public (properly educated in science) would not patronize your ilk. This not an illegitimate, ad hom argument; you only offer anecdote- so your authority is subject to challenge.
Strange assumption, Joe. ‘No True Scotsman’, perhaps? Aren’t there plenty of people (ahem, astronauts for example – didn’t SGU do an ep on such a thing?) who believe in all sorts of odd things who have achieved what you might consider to be an ‘adequate, K-12 science education’? At least, good enough for NASA…
I’d propose that the fact that nwtk2007 is contributing here is more of a sign that they’re actually trying to do something for science education regardless and question their beliefs, rather than assume that they’re ‘right’. And to claim that science education is going to be the ‘cure’ for everything pseudoscientific has already been shown in a few research papers to be an erroneous belief:
http://tinyurl.com/pseudosciandeducation
‘…I, like the others, found relatively mild correlations between scientific literacy among collage students and rejection of pseudoscientific beliefs.
In summary: science literacy has improved in recent decades, but remains alarmingly low-even among adults (30%). The improvement of science literacy has a modest effect on reducing adherence to pseudoscience but many other factors are implicated and a great deal of careful research remains to be done. It seems we should also note that the mass media that cover science are becoming more important than ever, but the effects for good or for ill remain largely to be examined. Finally, it is clear that there is a sharply increased need for the coordination of formal science learning with the informal sources that come later.’
I’m certain you can get the whole article either by your back issues or via ProQuest, as I’ve done.
*******
…Anyway – new article out: ‘Make Science Education Better By Hiring Scientists – But Give Them Support’:
(http://tinyurl.com/supportscience)
“Without proper support, research shows that 66 percent of new teachers will quit the profession within three years and new research from George Mason University’s New Science Teachers’ Support Network (NSTSN) has identified the most vital forms of support for new science teachers—providing them with in-classroom support and quality courses in how to teach science.
…The NSTSN, created by researchers at George Mason University’s Center for Restructuring Education in Science and Technology (CREST) with funding from the National Science Foundation, chronicled the experiences of uncertified teachers in three Virginia school districts and the people supporting them to determine how the new teachers’ needs were addressed and the consequences of those actions.
…Studies have shown that teacher attrition can be reduced through attention to improving new science teachers’ working conditions. Through improved working conditions, new science teachers are provided the time they need to learn how to teach well.
In addition, the NSTSN makes the following recommendations.
* Assign new teachers only one class preparation so they have time to reflect and revise lessons between class periods to perfect their teaching skills.
* Provide new science teachers their own classroom instead of having them float between classrooms with a cart.
* Establish a plan and identify a person or team to provide new teachers with an orientation to the school, policies and procedures.
* Provide teaching resources, including teaching supplies, computer equipment and science equipment, along with a trainer to demonstrate effective equipment use.
“As school districts continue to hire uncertified science teachers, clearly there is a need for a more thorough understanding of how effective support programs targeting this special population of teachers function, so that replication is possible,” says Frazier.”
podblackon 10 Sep 2008 at 4:41 pm wrote “Strange assumption, Joe. ‘No True Scotsman’, perhaps? Aren’t there plenty of people (ahem, astronauts for example {snip}”
>That’s the point, currently acceptable science ed. is not adequate, critical thinking needs more emphasis.
podblackon 10 Sep 2008 at 4:41 pm wrote “I’d propose that the fact that nwtk2007 is contributing here is more of a sign that they’re actually trying to do something for science education {snip}”
>Encountered elsewhere, nwtk has an inflated view of his/her understanding of science and science education. S/he is a chiropractor, which is an indicator of un-critical thinking; and of doubtful value contributing to science education.
Let me know, Joe, when you’re going to add something to this, rather than derailing… I stand by my original comments, as you haven’t given any evidence for your claims.
Joe, you obviously have some sort of ACD for anti chiro behavior.
My bet is that you tried it and were unsuccessful at it. Most of the trolling anti-chiro boys were just that.
But this is a discussion about education which I very seldom take lightly as it has been my main profession for much of my life and I think it is the sigle most important thing that this country needs to address.
RC says we shouldn’t trade CV’s but I will give you a hint of my scientific background. I had a masters in molecular biology many years before I went to chiro school and I found many of equal scientific back ground there as myself. You are just too wrong and your obsessiveness in pointing out that I am a chiro proves my point.
As to contributing to science education, I have taught no less than 12 years of physics, 9 years of AP biology, 2 years of AP chemistry, 6 or 7 (not sure) of AP physics, 12 years of chemistry, and an assortment of physical science classes when needed. That just at the HS level. If you would like evidence of success of my students, I am happy to provide it.
What contributions to science education have you made Joe?
The fact is that your anti-chiro bias shines through like a light. I have in the past pointed out the dangers of some of medical science but have never touted chiro over medical science for medical conditions which I, as a chiropractor, do not treat. I am simply objective about it and when the “so called” dangers of chiro come up in self righteous indignation of the anti-chiro, pro all-med types, I point out those dangers in order to maintain perspective.
It’s really that simple.
And realistically, if we want to keep new science teachers in science teaching, yes, give the support as stated previously by Podblack, and show them the money.
The best way to keep them there is to make it lucrative to the degree that they don’t have tonnes of higher paying professions starring them in the face.
I love the ones who tell teachers that they didn’t go into teaching for the money so they should be happy with what they make. Total BS. They might have initially gone into teaching to make a difference, but they will eventually be swayed by a public who doesn’t respect them and the lure of big bucks elsewhere.
Joe, your comments here serve as testimony to the need for focus on content that addresses the basics of scientific inquiry rather than the “facts” produced by science.
Science rejects “authority” as a source of knowledge. It IGNORES credentials. It is not one’s degree, experience, or age that matters, but rather what one can demonstrate using empirical evidence and logical inference.
I don’t care if nwtk2007 is an educator, astrologer, Nobel Prize Winning physicist, or circus clown. If the premises are supported with evidence and the logic is sound, he/she could easily convince me that the world is flat. What matters is the MESSAGE, not the messenger’s resume.
Assuming that an individual has nothing of value to say based on their profession rather than the statements themselves is an indication that one may be over-estimating one’s own understanding of basic science.
Thank you for providing evidence to support my point.
nwtk2007 on 10 Sep 2008 at 6:51 pm wrote “I will give you a hint of my scientific background. I had a masters in molecular biology many years before I went to chiro school and I found many of equal scientific back ground there as myself.” So, your “scientific background” did not work. QED
nwtk2007 on 10 Sep 2008 at 6:51 pm wrote “As to contributing to science education, I have taught no less than 12 years of physics, 9 years of AP biology, 2 years of AP chemistry, 6 or 7 (not sure) of AP physics, 12 years of chemistry, and an assortment of physical science classes when needed. That just at the HS level. If you would like evidence of success of my students, I am happy to provide it.”
We await, with bated breath.
nwtk2007 on 10 Sep 2008 at 6:51 pm wrote “The fact is that your anti-chiro bias shines through like a light. I have in the past pointed out the dangers of some of medical science but have never touted chiro over medical science for medical conditions which I, as a chiropractor, do not treat. I am simply objective about it and when the “so called” dangers of chiro come up in self righteous indignation of the anti-chiro, pro all-med types, I point out those dangers in order to maintain perspective.
It’s really that simple.”
CONFUSED MUCH?! Straw men don’t combust here.
But, why don’t you prove me wrong- cite evidence that a chiro can do something better than a physical therapist; or, even, a masseur. I know you cannot.
Joe, I think this says it all as far as you are concerned:
“S/he (nwtk2007)is a chiropractor, which is an indicator of un-critical thinking; and of doubtful value contributing to science education.
We are talking education here. What is it with you and chiropractic? What is it with your “ilk”?
Get a life dude, really.
Oh and it is OCD, not ACD that you appear to have Joe.
And, what were those contributions to science ed you have made?
I think Joe brings up a good point about nwtk being a chiropractor – but my point in pointing it out is to explain why I think so. When discerning the validity of information, the context out of which the information arises DOES have bearing. (This is exactly the kind of thing kids need to learn to be critical thinkers, how to discern a credible source of information!) Now, an idea isn’t automatically poor or substandard simply because it comes from a source that isn’t trusted, holds pseudoscientific beliefs in things like chiropractice, ID or dancing neon fairies or has otherwise proven unreliable (or to hold pseudoscientific beliefs).
When we talk about creating a wiki and materials for the classroom (or a database of some kind), we’re talking about creating a reliable context for teachers to come to for information and ideas. Ideas should, of course, be considered on their own merit but context informs and is another tool in the critical thinking box. There’s much discussion on this site about which journals are reliable and which allow for pseudoscience to creep in (or are merely outlets for pseudoscience).
It’s worth remembering that one way, and a very big way, that pseudoscience has infiltrated science is by a very concerted effort to infiltrate academic and professional medical institutions (universities, hospitals, high schools in the case of IDers, etc).
podblack on 10 Sep 2008 at 4:41 pm “Strange assumption, Joe. ‘No True Scotsman’, perhaps? Aren’t there plenty of people (ahem, astronauts for example – didn’t SGU do an ep on such a thing?) who believe in all sorts of odd things who have achieved what you might consider to be an ‘adequate, K-12 science education’?”
Don’t assume that what passes for an “adequate” K-12 science education for any other party impresses me.
badrescher on 10 Sep 2008 at 8:00 pm wrote “Joe, your comments here serve as testimony to the need for focus on content that addresses the basics of scientific inquiry rather than the “facts” produced by science.”
I am sorry I did not make it clear, we do need to achieve a better balance presenting science as a method as well as a collection of facts. I totally agree with Steve that the balance, in K-12 (and undergraduate) education, is tilted too far towards “facts.”
badrescher on 10 Sep 2008 at 8:00 pm wrote “I don’t care if nwtk2007 is an educator, astrologer, Nobel Prize Winning physicist, or circus clown. If the premises are supported with evidence and the logic is sound, he/she could easily convince me that the world is flat. What matters is the MESSAGE, not the messenger’s resume.”
That is a common source of confusion. We are not arguing facts- the subject is opinion; and nwtk’s opinions lack authority. Most particularly, nwtk is a failure of critical thinking and can be, safely, ignored. If there is any merit to nwtk’s arguments, I am sure a better-educated person will advance them. The same goes for astrologers and homeopaths (and errant astronauts).
I thought about some of you folks this morning as I was promoting science education tutoring some students at the local JC where I also teach Anatomy and Physiology.
I enjoyed explaining the concepts of diffusion as applied to cells in isotonic, hypertonic and hypotonic solutions, but was interupted by a student needing clarification on atomic structure and the concept of relative mass vs atomic mass as that is applied to atoms and molecules, not forgeting the presence of isotopes and their relative proportions in the ultimate measure of atomic masses. The most fun was the vector addition I had to review with a very bright and personable student. The “ahah!” reaction in this student’s case was absolutely pricelss.
In this and other topics, I encountered the usual and ejoyable “ahah!” that comes from clarifying the sometimes difficult principles of science, just one aspect of actively promoting science education down here in little ole Texas.
I have yet to see any pseudo science creep into discussions of anatomy, physiology, chemistry or physics but do occasionally field questions from students about it; them not knowing I am a chiropractor. You might be surprised by some of the “beliefs” I encounter and have to attempt to “correct”, so to speak, without shutting them down with intellectual put downs or insults. I have to do it without making them feel small or being critical of who and what they are. Anyway.
I liked Joe’s comment – “Don’t assume that what passes for an “adequate” K-12 science education for any other party impresses me.”
I personally assume this to be an exageration of an elitist’s conceit and attempt to impress. It doesn’t say much for the contributions to science education or about suggestions and ideas to improve it.
I think that in this situation, where tutoring is occuring and so many students are in need of personal one on one guidance and clarification, the addition of “teaching tools” like have been discussed here in this forum would be very useful.
To us who actually practice the effort to improve science education, such tools could be of great value. They are no substitute for good explanation and teaching, but could help a great deal in aiding students to visualize many concepts which are, for the average teacher, very difficult to get across to the average student.
Joe on 11 Sep 2008 at 12:43 pm wrote “That is a common source of confusion. We are not arguing facts- the subject is opinion; and nwtk’s opinions lack authority. ”
The subject is NOT opinion. The subject is science education. In science, there are no authorities (Carl Sagan’s words, not mine).
You are the one who is confused.
Arguments cannot be made from opinion. Opinion has no validity, no structure, and no premises. Knowledge (such as identification of the optimal strategy for improving science literacy in this country) cannot come from opinion.
Spewing venom is not productive, either, but at least this exchange serves to demonstrate where science education has been failing.
“but at least this exchange serves to demonstrate where science education has been failing.”
Now I am curiously curious. Where has science education been failing? Don’t be offended, I am just asking what you mean.
badrescher – It’s a bit hard for me to take an apologist for chiropractice (which is predominantly based upon pseudoscience and mystical ideas, and is just the kind of pseudoscience that this blog regularly dissects) seriously when they talk about improving science education. (Particularly something that regularly promotes an “alternative science” – be it chiropractic theory or ID). I’d have the same difficulty taking a proponent of ID seriously if they offered up their opinions about science education and skepticism (and it’s mainly opinion based upon his subjective experience that nwtk has been offering up here, while claiming authority because he claims to be a science teacher). It doesn’t mean I don’t listen to what they have to say, I just keep in mind that they have mystical beliefs they believe are science and are more interested in changing the face of science to suit their faith than vice versa.
Tell me FiFi,
When you go to the doctor for treatment do you first make sure he/she is an athiest and harbors no pseudoscientific beliefs that he might try to alter medicine to conform to?
Do you or did you do the same with all of your teachers who essentially gave you the basis for what you know and believe today?
Are you so staunch in your “beliefs” that you think there is no room for others in medicine or science, which, by the way, there are.
Our separation of church and state was initiated by guys who had many of these pseudo scientific beliefs.
In fact, in this world, I would imagine much of the animosity that exists in the muslem world against the west is derived from our separation of church and state.
But again, I digress. I tend to listen to those who think they have the only handle on “real” science, but I don’t really have to take them seriously and remind myself of that as I listen.
Now since you brought it up, in what way do you think I might try to change the face of science to suit my faith?
nwtk2007on 12 Sep 2008 at 7:33 am wrote:
“Now I am curiously curious. Where has science education been failing? Don’t be offended, I am just asking what you mean.”
It’s difficult to offend me; no worries there.
Science education fails when the fundamentals are misunderstood or completely ignored.
This is a classic example of pseudoskepticism. The pseudoskeptic behaves a lot like the pseudoscientist:
1. Claims to be a scientist(skeptic)
2. Ignores or breaks the rules of science(skepticism)
In this case, Joe (and now Fifi) continue to ignore the fact that scientific reasoning is a process that ignores the credentials and other characteristics of the PEOPLE involved. The ARGUMENT is what matters, not who argues it. Repeating their messages, without change, over and over does not change this fact. FIFI – I don’t need Joe’s (or your) reasoning explained to me. I get it. It’s still not logical or supportable.
When your (nwtk2007) WORDS don’t make sense or your STATEMENTS are unsupportable, those words and statements are open to criticism. Until then, what you do for a living means diddly-squat.
This is a fundamental concept that was obviously not learned by some of those here who claim to have something important to say about science education.
At any rate, this is someone’s blog, not a forum, and I will stop commenting. The only reason I have replied to these comments is that the point I was trying to make about fundamentals being the missing component is emphasized every time these Ad Hominem comments are made.
Frankly, I find this whole exchange fascinating.
nwtk – The issue isn’t your religious beliefs it’s that chiropractice promotes pseudoscience by trying to promote unproven religious ideas about “life energy” as biological fact (you’ve tried to shoehorn “subluxations” into various scientific holes too small on more than one occasion). I’d find a Scientologist or IDer purporting to teach science just as suspect and unreliable. It’s a basic matter of discerning one’s source and its reliability.
You can imagine whatever cause you want about why some fundamentalist Muslim factions don’t like the West, and why some fundamentalist Christian ones don’t like science for that matter (and why they both can justify their bloodlust in the name of their battling Gods) – I’m not sure what your imagination has to do with reality. The rest of us have watched the history of the conflict and can see the complexity of factors that led the world to this point (cause and effect). This, however is very far off topic and I’m not sure what you think it has to do with science education. Are you proposing that joining church and state (or mosque and state) in the US would result in peace or lack of conflict between religions?
And, yes, I was aware of my teacher’s religious beliefs and how they crept into materials they taught even as a kid – as well as the influence of different religions on cultural and social beliefs and habits. It’s one of the side effects of being raised godless by doctors with science – as an outsider you observe all kinds of things that those within a belief system are blind to themselves. It was a great way to grow up because I learned facts about what was known that interested me and when there was no answer I was told “we don’t know yet” rather than “it’s God’s plan” or whatever. It meant I knew that there were many unknowns and that science and research was a fantastic method for finding out how things work. I love science but it’s not a replacement religion for me, I’m quite okay with there being unanswered questions and mystery – in fact, it keeps life interesting since I’m driven by curiosity.
badrescher – Actually it seems to me that it’s the evidence that matters in science not merely the argument, and really science is both a method and a body of knowledge. A theory or hypothesis (an argument) unfounded in facts is worth little scientifically. The scientific process establishes facts through repeated experimentation (with these facts needing to be confirmed by someone other than the person proposing a certain theory to help mitigate bias) and then theories are built upon the facts. However, while all facts remain open to revision, certain facts are well established enough that we don’t need to reprove their veracity each time we present them to underpin a theory. It would be impossible to redo every experiment each time we moved forward to test a theory through experimentation – the reliability of the source of the original information becomes relevant.
Since part of this discussion across a number of blogs has been about how to discern a reliable source from one promoting pseudoscience, it seemed worth mentioning to me.
FiFi – “I just keep in mind that they have mystical beliefs they believe are science and are more interested in changing the face of science to suit their faith than vice versa.”
This your statement FiFi. What beliefs of mine are you refering to? Or even most chiropractors?
The subluxation?
Once again, I neither believe in it or disblieve it to exist. I do not treat it and depending upon the definitin of it might or might not be able to demonstrate it. But I do not dissmiss it either. Nor do I teach it to my students nor do I tell my patients about it. Some chiro’s might but that doesn’t mean you should totally disregard what all of them might say.
I was in a PT’s office yesterday and noticed the poster on display showing how the foot is mapped out for the various organs of the body such as liver, gall bladder, spleen, etc. I think it is called reflexology. I had previously seen it in another PT’s clinic a while back. By massaging or placing pressure on the various areas of the foot one can apparently treat the organ in question. I don’t know, I just know it is most likely bogus and an example of pseudoscience. I asked if they do this technique and they affirmed that they do.
Now, am I to discount the opinion of all PT’s based upon the fact that some practice this strange technique and totally dismiss their opinions? Am I to blanketly assume that all PT’s are quacks since they still do this? Maybe some are good and some are not. Maybe some don’t do the technique and some do so only some are quacks and some ore not.
Also, you say you actually knew your teachers beliefs and how those beliefs crept into their teaching. What were they. What were the beliefs and how did they get into the teachers teaching? Was it all of your science teachers or only some?
I had a lot of science teachers and never did a single one teach anything not consistent with the tests we were using or infer anything religious, even at the christian college I went to.
How about your doctors? Do you ask them their beliefs before you let them treat you? What were the beliefs of one whom you did not let treat you because of his/her beliefs?
You see, I never found out any beliefs of any of my doctors. I did find out where a doctor who did surgery on my daughters hip went to church, so I would assume there were some religious beliefs there. I don’t think it effected how he opeerated or treated my daughter. But that ws the only one I can remember right off.
So how ’bout it FiFi?
Small typo above – “I had a lot of science teachers and never did a single one teach anything not consistent with the tests we were using ”
That should be texts, not tests.
nwtk – “Once again, I neither believe in it or disblieve it to exist. I do not treat it and depending upon the definitin of it might or might not be able to demonstrate it. But I do not dissmiss it either. Nor do I teach it to my students nor do I tell my patients about it. Some chiro’s might but that doesn’t mean you should totally disregard what all of them might say.”
Talk about dancing around something! You don’t know if it exists but you “might be able to demonstrate it” (but only if someone else defines “it” for you!)! You remain open to the possibility that “subluxations” exist even though you claim you don’t know what they are and need someone else to define a subluxation (but then you’d be able to “demonstrate it”).
The point is that there is no anatomical evidence for subluxations and the theory doesn’t make sense according to biology and the available evidence – simply claiming that a subluxation is something different than taught in chiro colleges that DOES exist is playing semantics and trying to fit chiro theory into reality after the fact.
Are you making your professional belief in chiropractic theory (pseudoscience) analogous to a religion? It’s the pseudoscience that’s the problem – the fact that you seem to consider your belief in chiropractice as being analogous to a religion makes it even more problematic that you’re teaching science but have faith in a pseudoscience. The fact that subluxations are a “belief” to you or something you believe or don’t believe in rather than something that exists or doesn’t independent of your beliefs.
I think it’s a pretty big conflict of interest to be profiting financially from practicing a pseudoscience as a chiropractor while teaching science to kids – the fact that you’re being an apologist for the theory of subluxation here only confirms this (being wishy washy about it and playing semantics isn’t having an open mind, in this case it’s pretty clearly trying to leave the door open for pseudoscience because you have a vested financial interest).
Try to think beyond the box FiFi.
The term subluxation does not, in and of itself, imply that it interfers with any life energy force, what ever that might or might not be.
You are fixated of on the theory that removal of these “lesions” is thought by some to remove this interference.
And fixation is a key to what manipulation actually does. If you think joints don’t get fixated and hindered from their normal motion, then you are just being obstenant and stubborn.
So I am not dancing around anything. As I have said time and again, I do not treat the “subluxation” as you abviously think all chiro’s do, which they do not by the way. I know of none that do.
Your comment about this big conflict of interest is stupid too since I do not practice pseudoscience. Some chiro’s do, I guess, but not me nor the ones I know. Most of us treat injury and never mention or even think of the dreaded “subluxation”. You need to get over that.
I also do not simply dismiss anything just because their is no evidence for it, as defined by the “scientificly knowledgable” here and on other blogs. I leave open the possibility that there are some things not fully understood. Still not dancing.
In fact, you remind me of the very kids I was speaking of on another thread; too inflexible in your “beliefs” to give any credence or “worth”, for lack of a better word, to those with differing beliefs or opinions.
Also, not dismissind something for lack of evidence does not constitute faith in it.
And you still haven’t answered any of my previous questions FiFi. Who’s dancing now?
By the way, the various theories, semmantics as you put it, is taught in chiro colleges. There are many different views as I remember it, and the term “subluxation” was not even used by most of the prof’s in discussion joint dysfunction.
Your bias blinds you from the truth of what chiro’s think a subluxation might or might not be.
nwtk – You say you “know” that no chiropractors treat subluxations (yet you infer there are many definitions of subluxation and that you’d need it defined by someone else but if it was defined by someone else then you could “demonstrate it”!). How do you know this? Every single chiro college I’ve been referred to (by yourself and your fellow chiro quackdoctor) as a place that teaches “science” also has stuff up about how it’s all based upon subluxations and “life force” and so on. You make claims for chiropractice that aren’t born out by the evidence – in this case that it has nothing to do with “subluxations” and that you KNOW that NO chiropractors treat what they imagine to be “subluxations” – which seems very odd since this is what the chiropractic colleges are teaching!
I pointed out your previous questions are irrelevant and an attempt to fish for red herrings as diversion. (They’re irrelevant because you’re comparing apples and oranges. There are rules of conduct in place to prevent doctors from the kinds of conflict of interest you’re engage in….though there’s room for improvement there too and the topic of doctors who use their credentials to profit from pseudoscience has often been discussed on this blog a number of times.)
The point is you claim to practice a pseudoscience (chiropractice) for profit while also claiming to practice as a science teacher. You also try to pretend chiropractice is not a pseudoscience and that the pseudoscientific parts that were and are taught as the basic underlying principle of chiropractice aren’t relevant (as well as making grandiose claims about what all other chiropractors believe and practice, which is contradicted by the websites of chiro colleges you and fellow apologists pointed to as examples of “science” in chiropractice).
You throw out stuff like “think outside the box” when you’re actually thinking very much “in the box” of chiropractice and trying to change the shape of facts and reality to conform to the shape of your box. You also continually offer up anecdotes as evidence, while being unable or unwilling to acknowledge that the profit you make as a chiropractor creates even more potential bias regarding your observations since you stand to profit financially by confirming your beliefs (and potentially lose money if you give up your beliefs).
FiFi’s misquote -”You say you “know” that no chiropractors treat subluxations”
This is an example of how you totally misquote what I say and misrepresent my position. I did not say this.
Actual quote – “I know of none that do.”
Quite a bit different from what you claim I said.
FiFi’s misrepresentation of what I said – “you infer there are many definitions of subluxation and that you’d need it defined by someone else but if it was defined by someone else then you could “demonstrate it”!”
Actual quote of what I said – “I do not treat it and depending upon the definitin of it might or might not be able to demonstrate it.”
Again, quite a bit diff from what you represent that I said. For example, if one defines a subluxation as a fixated joint or not freely movable joint, then I could demonstrate it by locating fixated joints. It depends upon what one refers to a subluxation as being.
In your ignorance of what is taught in chiro schools, you fail to know that there are many theories about whot a “subluxation” is and many views. It makes no difference to me since I do not treat them.
Mostchiros I know treat injuries with what is basically physical therapy or physical medicine. In fact, I share space with a CARF certified rehab center which I use much of the time to treat my patients.
Try to get what I say right. I am pretty clear about it.
FiFi – “I pointed out your previous questions are irrelevant and an attempt to fish for red herrings as diversion.”
My previous questions are not red herrings as you put it.
This is one question I asked – “How about your doctors? Do you ask them their beliefs before you let them treat you? What were the beliefs of one whom you did not let treat you because of his/her beliefs?”
Based upon your claim and position on persons with differing beliefs, I think this is a relevant question. You brought it up, not me.
I also said and asked – “Also, you say you actually knew your teachers beliefs and how those beliefs crept into their teaching. What were they. What were the beliefs and how did they get into the teachers teaching? Was it all of your science teachers or only some?”
Again, you brought it up, I am just asking for specifics.
As to losing money if I gave up my beliefs, I just don’t get that. I would have to give up my knowledge that physical medicine is beneficial for injuries and that rehabilitation is not beneficial to a return to pre-accident status. Your comment makes no sense.
And I don’t have to give up a “belief” in “subluxations” since I don’t “believe” in them anyway. I just don’t deny their existence in some form or another. And you’re right, it really is semmantics. A chiro might call it subluxation but I would call it a fixation or a dysfunction.
I think you are “OCD” (as my daughter has said about you) about chiro and subluxations. I have a very smart daughter.
nwtk – I’ve already explained that I learned science at home from my parents before I encountered it at school (and from visiting the labs my father worked at). I didn’t get my science education at school, nor was I taught how to learn at school – my parents and grandmother taught me (my grandmother was a teacher, both my parents are doctors, my father did research). By the time I was in school being taught things by teachers I already knew how to look things up, how to observe and keep notes on natural phenomena, the tricks perception play on us and so on. I was pretty lucky and I recognize I grew up under exceptional circumstances
I’m not sure what purpose me providing anecdotes about noticing the influence of things like a teacher’s religion or other aspects of their culture serves. I’m also aware of the cultural influences of my families’ religious backgrounds and how they play out in each family. I understand that the things that were and are obvious to me because I grew up godless and without a belief system that posited “god” as an explanation for life, the universe and everything aren’t obscured by familiarity for people who did grow up in theist tradition and still believe.
I’ve already explained why my doctors aren’t in the same position as you are by being a chiropractor (profiting and earning a living from pseudoscience) and a science teacher (profiting and earning a living from, ostensibly, teaching science but it could well be the pseudoscience you make a living from that you teach since you don’t recognize chiropractic theory based upon illness being a result of blocked “life energy” as pseudoscience and defend it as scientific). And, yes, I’d want to know if a science teacher worked as a chiropractor on the side or promoted ID outside of the class and if they were educating my child I’d object. I’d also want to know if my doctor was a scientologist, practiced reiki professionally, believed illness was due to energy blockages of invisible energy arteries or walking under a ladder since it would very much impact their ability to do their job properly and show a clear lack of understanding of basic biology.
“A chiro might call it subluxation but I would call it a fixation or a dysfunction.”
I thought you said that you KNOW that NO chiros treat subluxations…contradict yourself and make grandiose assertions much?
So…you don’t believe in subluxations but you do believe they exist as other things….really you’re talking nonsense here. What your daughter thinks is irrelevant (though I’m sure you’re having difficulty recognizing her bias too
) The reason I keep bringing up subluxations because you do such a funny little jig each time anyone does to try to somehow make them fit into something real. But continue to USE your daughter as a means to throw out an ad hom if that’s the best you’ve got as you continue to contradict your own claims.
BTW, you reveal that your daughter doesn’t actually understand what OCD means when you used her as a means to attempt to be insulting. All your revealed was that you clearly didn’t do a very good job educating HER about science and medicine.
OCD is being used as a slang term ding dong!
Are you sure you are as smart as you obviously think you are?
And hypothetically speaking, if I were your child’s teacher and you found out that I believed in God and my church believed that God created the earth and all life in six 24 hour days, you would object to me teaching your child science?
Is that what you are implying? (You’ll notice that I ask and don’t automatically assume you are implying something goofy and idiotic.)
nwtk – I see that once again your only response is to call me names.
I don’t think about how smart I am, it’s not a major preoccupation and I recognize all different kinds of intelligence and talents as being valid. Besides, how much I value and respect individuals has to do with much more than their IQ. It seems to be a big deal to you though…
If you were my child’s science teacher and a practicing chiropractor I’d not only be complaining to the principal and school board, I’d be writing letters to the editor. Once again, are you saying that being a chiropractor is analogous to being religious?
I am responsible for derailing the thread by pointing-out that chiros cannot be considered critical thinkers, thus their opinions are irrelevant to this topic. nwtk’s posts have made that abundantly clear, as critiqued by Fifi.
I suggest that nwtk should take his arguments here http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=869 or here http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=1610 where chiro is the topic.
Furthermore, when nwtk says he knows of no chiros that believe in subluxation, it strains credulity since 9 out of 10 do (“How chiropractors think and practice” William P. McDonald et al “Seminars in Integrative Medicine” 2004 V.2 #3 92-98). That is a survey of, and by, chiros. Sometimes they just use other words:
“Today, Dr. Gatterman would tell you there are not 100 synonyms for the word subluxation; there are more than 300.” http://www.dynamicchiropractic.com/mpacms/dc/article.php?id=53263 “Dynamic Chiropractic” is their news magazine.
But, I digress, nwtk, just take your defense of your pseudoscience to a more appropriate forum.
Joe, I would say take your ad hom attacks to a diff forum. As you said, you started it with your assumptions and continued absurd claims of me proving your point.
And FiFi, how could you possibly see what I have said as equating chiropractic practice with being religious.
It is truly astonishing that you can mis-quote, misrepresent and misunderstand what I have said so badly. Again, I can see nothing but your extreme bias as being the reason.
But the really incredible thing is that you would protest to a school board that you child’s science teacher holds differing beliefs than yourself and thus don’t want that teacher to be your child’s teacher.
I don’t know what it is like in Canada but in the US, whether good or bad, most teachers of science or a great many of them, hold very strong religious beliefs about god and creation as well as the “pseudosciences” as you put it. You would be very, very hard pressed to make your argument stick in this regard and would probably be labeled as the “nutt parent” of the school and pretty much disregarded.
You said – “Besides, how much I value and respect individuals has to do with much more than their IQ. ”
Based upon what I have been reading, I find that extremely hard to believe.
nwtk2007 on 13 Sep 2008 at 4:54 pm wrote “Joe, I would say take your ad hom attacks to a diff forum. As you said, you started it with your assumptions and continued absurd claims of me proving your point.”
Name the forum.
nwtk2007 on 13 Sep 2008 at 4:54 pm wrote “And FiFi, how could you possibly see what I have said as equating chiropractic practice with being religious.”
Chiropracty is a cult (a sort of religion) because it cannot abandon the silly claims of its progenitor, and because it is based on belief, rather than reliable data. http://www.chirobase.org/05RB/BCC/01.html
Name the forum?
What a bunch of horse hockey.
All of those forums just kick you off for even marginally disagreeing.
Your type don’t like it that someone might be slightly different from what you want us to be.
Medicine has it’s progenitors doesn’t it?
nwtk2007
Progenitors such as shamans and witch doctors? And do you have “progenitor” somewhere on your shingle?
Nope. Do you?
What an exercise in “I know it all elitism”.
Come into the real world.
Amazing how bloggers are so smart.
No, but then I don’t have any clients that were under the impression I was practicing an art that requires chicanery just to get them in the door.
“The default or (as far as we’re aware) unanticipated purpose of the universe may simply be to expand and increase its propensity for the creation of undirected or self-directed purposefulness.
But, paradoxically, might we then anticipate the proliferation of separately purposeful mechanisms to arrive at a stage where their cross-purposes come into serious play – and hence the necessity for mutually recognized strategic directives? ”
What a bunch of horse $hit Niles.
And injured people come to me. I don’t go looking for them. Most are referred by former patients.
Doesn’t that bite for you?
I think they must feel that they were helped by me and want their friends and family helped in the same way.
No pseudoscience. Just good treatment.
Does your self importance out weigh your need to help people in need?
Why don’t you go indulge yourself in a little self gratification and pat yourself on the back for a while.
Actually as a professional investigator I made a lot of money off of watching the “injured” people that came to chiropractors in the process of workers compensation fraud investigations.
When’s the last time you did anything for anybody?
You know, I have had people say they saw people come into my clinic also. Good eyes I told them. What they know about injured people could hang like some lint in their belly button.
I have been investigated by the FBI dude. They said I was a great doctor. Case closed. I have their letter to prove it.
People get injured and they need help. I provide it.
Sucks for you I guess.
The point is that these particular injured people only started limping and showing other signs of disability just before and after they entered the chiropractors’ offices.
There were a lot of miraculous cures exhibited later, but they didn’t often last long. A string of repeat visits were the norm.
Not that there’s necessarily anything wrong with that.
Do show us that FBI letter, dude.
By the way, if you were actually a trained scientist, you would know that life forms are (so far) the only known purposeful mechanisms in nature. To the extent that the diverse purposes of these forms on earth inadvertently affect the course of events on other planets (by landing things on them, for example), these effects were undirected. And we have no way of knowing what part other self-directed mechanisms have played in the “evolution” of the cosmos since the proverbial beginning of time.
But of course you knew that.
Roy Niles said – “The point is that these particular injured people only started limping and showing other signs of disability just before and after they entered the chiropractors’ offices.”
And I guess you were there. Right.
What a biased statement. More horse manure.
And the by Niles – “By the way, if you were actually a trained scientist, you would know that life forms are (so far) the only known purposeful mechanisms in nature.”
Purposeful? Nature doesn’t work with a purpose. You must really be high. Have another.
And then – “if you were actually a trained scientist,”
Do you even have a clue what that means? A trained scientist?
No one is “trained” to be a “scientist”.
Whoosh! You really don’t know do you?
As to whether I was there, did I forget to mention it was my job to be there? And if you’d like to give us your name, I’d be glad to look up that FBI letter for you, in case you lost it.
And as you said, nature (as a as we know) doesn’t work with a purpose, but paradoxically, has provided life forms that do.
Oh, and I suggest you google the phrase “trained scientist” to get an inkling of its usage in the language.
Oh believe me Niles, I wouldn’t give out a name on a blog or to you.
Far too many unbalanced individuals out there for my taste.
As to the FBI investigation, it was actually the company I was working for at the time who was the target, along with all of the doctors of course.
From what I was told, there were a great many anonymous (cowardly) complaints and accusations about our clinics and an insurance company who were behind the impetous that initiated the investigation.
We were raided, records were taken, and we all were”interviewed”.
After a few months of rumors and much inuindo, the FBI finally admitted that they had found nothing to substantiate the accusations and in fact found us to be innocent of all accusations. They had a few suggestions but in the end, wrote us the letter of which I mentioned, closing the investigation and leaving it at that.
As you should know as an investigator, these case closures are not the norm and reflect the total lack of foundation of the “anonymous” and cowardly accusations.
You see, our success was based upon hard, hard work, good patient care and a dedication to ethical treatment. Our patients were our best supporters and continued to refer their friends and family. We grew a great deal after that.
But you’ll just have to take my word for that and that is all you’ll get out of me about that issue.
And there is nothing much on a google search for trained scientist so I guess you will also have to defer to me about that as well.
Believe me, chiropractic is the least of my “qualifications” to speak with confidence about science and education.
You also said – “The point is that these particular injured people only started limping and showing other signs of disability just before and after they entered the chiropractors’ offices.
There were a lot of miraculous cures exhibited later, but they didn’t often last long. A string of repeat visits were the norm.”
I don’t know what you are implying but you haven’t been to my clinic I am sure and you speak form some dream state you must be in. As stated numerous times, I treat injuries and most of my patients I never see again once they are released from care for the treatment of their injuries.
The fact that so many assume all chiro’s do the same thing is evidence of your lack of knowledge about what chiro’s are doing.
Any thing else Niles?
nwtk2007,
Here’s a sampling from one of many Google pages referring to “trained scientists:”
http://www.google.com/search?
Results 1 – 10 of about 367,000 for trained scientist. (0.06 seconds)
Search Results
Amazon.com: Psychological Foundations of Success: A Harvard …
Psychological Foundations of Success: A Harvard-Trained Scientist Separates the Science of Success from Self-Help Snake Oil (Paperback) …
http://www.amazon.com/Psychological-Foundations-Success-Harvard-Trained- Scientist/dp/0972554017 – 261k – Cached – Similar pages
Aafia Siddiqui – MIT Trained Scientist With Accused al Qaeda Ties …
Aug 4, 2008 … Five years after her disappearance, an MIT-trained Pakistani neuroscientist accused of belonging to an Al Qaeda cell based in Boston, …
http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates/2008/08/04/mit-trained-pakistani- scientist-with-accused-al-qaeda-ties-in-custody/ – 54k – Cached – Similar pages
MIT trained scientist Aafia Siddiqui Arrested for Attempting to …
MIT trained scientist Aafia Siddiqui Arrested for Attempting to Kill United States Officers in Afghanistan. August 5, 2008 …
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/3559 – 21k – Cached – Similar pages
psychologcal foundations of success: A Harvard-Trained Scientist … – Google Books Result
by Stephen J. Kraus – 2002 – Success – 288 pages
… sociologists, and other social scientists have explored the differences … Success: A Harvard-Trained Scientist Separates the Science of Success from …
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4f7_1218060556 – 53k – Cached – Similar pages
Psychological Foundations of Success: A Harvard-Trained Scientist …
Dark Matter Precisely Identified by Bell Labs-Trained Scientist …
Dark Matter Precisely Identified by Bell Labs-Trained Scientist. …find AScribe Science News Service articles. Byline: The Drexler Foundation LOS ALTOS …
And as to my reference to repeat visits to chiropractors, you are surely aware that under various State Workers Comp systems, when there were no effective controls in place, the number of visits “needed” to deal with alleged injuries were far higher than those needed for equivalent medical rehabilitative services.
Leading in some cases to Feds looking into medicaid fraud charges.
Which it seems you are also fully aware of.
And I presume as a putative scientist, you are aware of the writings of Alfred North Whitehead, scientist, mathematician and philosopher.
I’m informed that the evolutionary history of life suggested to Whitehead that there is an ever present urge which can be interpreted as purposive. It can be seen as an aim to greater richness of experience or “higher modes of subjective satisfaction” . This doesn’t mean every step in evolution involved an increase in richness of experience of the entity being evolved. It does mean that from the foundations of the universe there was the possibility (not the inevitability) of all sorts of experience, including self-conscious experience that we know in ourselves. Whitehead comments that “Scientists animated by the purpose of proving that they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study”
But of course you didn’t know he had said or thought any of that, or that if he did, it was, as far as you’re concerned, horseshit.
Those google resp for “trained scientist” I saw. What significance they have to what was being discussed is not clear however.
I don’t believe any suggest what a “trained scientist” is.
In Texas it has been shown that the cost of chiro care in workers comp cases is less costly than medical care. What W/C has to do with medicaid is beyond me. Medicaid doesn’t cover chiro, at least until recently I think. And medicaid doesn’t have anything to do with W/C in Texas as far as I know.
I am pretty sure that all medicaid fraud is non-chiro, specifically medical that is.
So your point is?
And you’re right, I don’t know who Whitehead is.
Google “medicaid fraud chiropractic” and see what comes up. And of course you never said what the Feds were after when they investigated your outfit earlier, so we don’t know that this wasn’t what they were looking at. But if it wasn’t fraud, what was it.
Anyway, as long as you remain anonymous, we can’t rely on anything you say, including the extent to which you have ever taught science.
Certainly the consensus here is that you don’t have a very sophisticated grasp of the subject.
Niles – “Certainly the consensus here is that you don’t have a very sophisticated grasp of the subject.”
The consensus is also based upon a very anti-chiro view that pigeon holes all chiro’s into the same group who they think all do the same thing. As “scientists” or at least being experts on “science” as some claim to be here, one would think that there would be less bias as scientists need to be.
Niles – “Anyway, as long as you remain anonymous, we can’t rely on anything you say, including the extent to which you have ever taught science.”
Sorry, but there are too many “unbiased”, “scientists”, loose canons here and elsewhere to give personal info out. So you’ll just have to trust your instincts as to whether or not I am truthful about what I have and have not done.
As to the FBI, of course they were looking for fraud. They found none and they freely said so.
nwtk – No, I wouldn’t be complaining to the school board about “differing views”, I’d be complaining about science being taught by someone who profits financially from promoting pseudoscience – it’s a clear conflict of interest. The issue is science and pseudoscience – you’re the one who keeps trying to reframe it as a question of religious freedom. So, I ask again, do you consider chiropractice a religion?
Heh, nwtk’s a “science educator” who doesn’t believe it takes training and the acquiring of skills to work as a scientist!?! I mean, why learn a methodology or get trained in the skills needed to undertake experiments and analyze the results? Why learn or teach the value of the actual skills and methodology of science?
What a funny perspective on teaching anything! Even art is about acquiring skills and using them in practice. Not only are there the technical skills in the various mediums one uses (or the medium one specializes in using) but also the skills to think critically and analyze work – this is pretty much the same across disciplines.
nwtk2007 on 14 Sep 2008 at 12:58 am wrote “I have been investigated by the FBI dude. They said I was a great doctor.” [sic, you are not a doctor]
nwtk2007 on 15 Sep 2008 at 7:56 am wrote “As to the FBI, of course they were looking for fraud. They found none and they freely said so.”
So, being a “great chiropractor” simply means not being a fraud …
nwtk’s claims not to know subluxation-based practitioners suggests s/he practices in extreme isolation since, as I cited (above) their own surveys show 90% do believe in subluxation. One could argue that 90% make the rest look bad.
Every chiro claims to be helping people, so that is no distinction. No, we have to treat anonymous chiros according to the lowest common denominator, and that is pretty low.
FiFi – “So, I ask again, do you consider chiropractice a religion?”
Asked and answered. But for those who cannot read, no.
FiFi – “Heh, nwtk’s a “science educator” who doesn’t believe it takes training and the acquiring of skills to work as a scientist!?!”
I believe what I said was that you don’t really know what a “trained scientist” is.
What a twister of words. Is there some reason why you must twist what I say? It is very typical of the anit-chiro’s.
Joe – “nwtk’s claims not to know subluxation-based practitioners suggests s/he practices in extreme isolation since, as I cited (above) their own surveys show 90% do believe in subluxation. One could argue that 90% make the rest look bad. ”
Actually I could agree with that. But not knowing any subluxation based chiro’s is no crime. I simply don’t know any. All of the chiro’s I know treat injuries and do not get into the dreaded subluxation. Why do you have such a problem with that?
Joe – “So, being a “great chiropractor” simply means not being a fraud … ”
Too dumb. But not being a fraud is a plus wouldn’t you say?
So anyway, what contributions to science ed have any of you made outside your opinions being expressed on this blog?
Any other thoughts on a Wiki text book?
nwtk – If you don’t consider chiropractice a religion why do you keep going on about “differing views” when I’ve clearly explained a number of times the issue is not “differing” beliefs or views but that you profit from practicing pseudoscience yet claim to teach science? Apart from the fact that (like all anonymous people online, myself included) you could be anyone lying about who they are – this indicates that you either ignorantly mistake pseudoscience for science or actively and knowingly promote pseudoscience as science. (Certainly something very prevalent and subsidized by the Supplement and Vitamin industry – which reaps huge profits and faces ridiculously few legal restraints and is a huge source of profit for many chiropractors who sell supplements.)
To address the idea of religious beliefs vis a vis teaching science. Certainly people compartmentalize science and religion to avoid cognitive dissonance, and I don’t take issue with these people teaching science because they’re not claiming their religious beliefs ARE scientific or science. IDers, Scientologists and chiropractors such as yourself who don’t recognize the difference between science, pseudoscience and religion are not the same as people who compartmentalize science and religion.
What contributions to science have you made nwtk? As an apologist for the pseudoscience of chiropractice you really do seem like more of the problem than the solution!
I’m also not anti-chiro, just anti-pseudoscience whether it’s being promoted by an MD or a chiro. Just because I think you’re here to promote pseudoscience and take issue with what you say doesn’t mean I take issue with all chiros – the chiropractors over at chirobase.org deserve a great deal of respect in my opinion. (Trying to paint yourself as being victimized when you’re the one promoting pseudoscience on an evidence-based science blog is, well, funny….talk about twisting and distorting reality!) But back to the evidence-based chiros at chirobase.org I discovered because of Dr Hall and for whom I have a great deal of respect…they’ve been brave enough to go against the rather chiro industry (and its powerful and ruthless allies, and the true believers on a mission) and to stand up and question the pseudoscientific beliefs being promoted – that takes balls and thinking outside of the box of one’s education (rather than trying to change the shape of science so it fits into chiro’s square little box made from discarded old beliefs that evidence indicates are unsound).
Without getting into all of your comments I’ll just ask. In what way do you think I promote pseudoscience either in my practice or as a teacher?
I treat injuries with what most would consider PT more than chiropractic as do most of the chiro’s I know. No subluxation based treatment and no promotion of said “lesions”.
As to my contributions to science ed, I should probably just leave it at having taught science since 1982 at both the HS and college levels. You probably wouldn’t believe me or would just accuse me of making it up or some other such nonsense. At least I can say I have taught for some number of years. I still haven’t heard from you or Joe about any simblance of contribution which gives you the expertice to criticize me and my comments on science ed.
How can anyone have taught science since 1982 and not heard of Alfred North Whitehead?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whitehead/
“Alfred North Whitehead (b.1861 – d.1947), British mathematician, logician and philosopher best known for his work in mathematical logic and the philosophy of science. In collaboration with Bertrand Russell, he authored the landmark three-volume Principia Mathematica (1910, 1912, 1913) and contributed significantly to twentieth-century logic and metaphysics.”
Even more to the point, how can a science teacher not be aware that life forms are purposive?
Bottom line: How could that particular teacher (chiro or otherwise) be qualified to comment substantively (and purposively) on WikiScience textbooks in general and on their contribution to critical thinking in particular?
nwtk – I think you promote pseudoscience (or don’t recognize it as pseudoscience) because you are consistently an apologist for chiropractic and other beliefs that are pseudoscientific (subluxations, blocked life energy causing illness and so on) and even dangerous (neck manipulations that can cause tearing and stroke). Since you’re unwilling to be critical of fellow chiropractors AT ALL (except the ones at chirobase.org whose practice and approach IS evidence-based) and are extremely (even irrationally) critical of medicine, this indicates a very deeply instilled bias (or just a conscious tactic). You also make grand claims about what all other chiros do that contradict information gathered by other chiropractors! So, rather than looking at the evidence of what’s going on in chiropractice you make grand claims based upon subjective beliefs and no evidence at all (like I said, you’re an apologist).
Like I said, this makes you part of the problem not the solution and means you’re quite possibly actively destructive as a teacher not the positive contributor you claim to be. Your faux claims to authority as a means to try to validate yourself and invalidate others is meaningless.
FiFi, what a liar you are.
When did I ever comment at all about ‘blocked life energy”, or make some claim for subluxations other than to say that I don’t dismiss them out of hand. And we already know the “vast” evidence for the dangers of chiropractic.
I am still waiting for someone to summarize it all in one place. Shouldn’t take too much room on a post.
And I am critical of medical mistakes, not medicine. Mistakes. Errors which kill daily. Accidental, avoidable errors, not medicine. Are you capable of understanding that FiFi.
You twist the truth of what I say even better that the other anti-chiro’s I have encountered. That means that you lie FiFi to promote your own agenda. Get it? Lying?
I also don’t contradict other chiro’s info, I just don’t know any who treat subluxations. Understand the difference FiFi?
I have also seen the evidence presented to support some of what chiro does for patients, only to have it shunned without even reading it. That also is a lie, in and of itself.
I do see chiro work everyday, no doubt about that, but in conjunction with regular therapeutic procedures and not alone as a treatment for subluxations. Like I have said a million times now, I don’t treat subluxations, nor do the chiro’s I know. We treat injuries, not subluxations.
There is no apologist activity here on my part. The subluxation treaters can defend themselves but I doubt if they feel you are worthy of their time.
And what part of what problem am I FiFi? You gonna make up some more BS, stwist a few more of my comments, lie about what you claim I do or say?
Which among us truely has “faux” claims of authority on this blog?
nwtk – I make NO claims to an authority on science or medicine, nor do I propose I am one. You regularly claim to be an authority based on your assertions that you are a chiropractor and a science teacher.
You’re an apologist for things like subluxations and “innate intelligence” and “life energy” and chiropractice in general. Sure you won’t actually say you believe in these quacky ideas, what you do as an apologist is try to keep the door open and propose that it’s just a matter of semantics really and so on. That’s what apologists do, they’re not standing up and honestly defending a belief they hold, they’re being apologetic about it and trying to slip it in the door through various strategies.
You may grand assertions about what ALL chiropractors believe or don’t believe that are contradicted by evidence collected by chiropractors to suit whatever you think will play with people into science who read here or who are searching for scientific info on chiropractice (that’s why you try to present yourself as being into evidence-based medicine even though the only chiropractors you ever criticize are those who are evidence-based!). Calling me a liar doesn’t actually make you honest ya know…but once again it seems to be the best you can do in the face of it being pointed out that you profit from practicing a pseudoscience (which you unquestioningly believe to be a science) while purporting to teach science – this is a clear conflict of interest.
that should read…
You may grand assertions about what ALL chiropractors believe or don’t believe (assertions that are contradicted by evidence collected by chiropractors and other chiropractors who post here no less). Like any good apologist, you tailer your assertions to suit whatever you think will play with people into science who read here or who are searching for scientific info on chiropractice (that’s why you try to present yourself as being into evidence-based medicine even though the only chiropractors you ever criticize are those who are evidence-based!). Calling me a liar doesn’t actually make you honest ya know…but once again it seems to be the best you can do in the face of it being pointed out that you profit from practicing a pseudoscience (which you unquestioningly believe to be a science) while purporting to teach science – this is a clear conflict of interest.
FiFi,
Thank you for clarifying what it is that I truly believe and do.
Without someone like you to delineate my thoughts I might never have seen the truth of what I was thinking.
Thank you so much.
How dare I be so dishonest with myself.
Niles,
You have there.
I have never heard of Alfred North Whitehead, at least not by name.
I know, I should have consulted an early 20th century phylosopher, mathematician and logician before I started teaching science. Actually, you might be right about that. I will look into his “stuff” and see what he has to say.
My conflict of interest might hinder my research however.
Niles, what sepcifically is needed from Whitehead to make a good science ed teacher. Just descriptions of his ideas are difficult at best.
What the hey. I tried.
nwtk2007, what you may need, or have needed, is simply to know of the historical and contemporary figures that were instrumental in developing the philosophy of science, and in particular, its application to the education of newer generations of students – those with curiosity about science in general, in any case.
And to recognize that even descriptions of Whitehead’s ideas are difficult is a start. It might make you less quick to pooh pooh ideas of others that may have had their genesis in the ideas of these pioneers.
My sense is that you have suffered from a lack of the type of curiosity sufficient to overcome the effort it takes to examine these difficult concepts. But you do the budding curiosity of your students a disservice if you aren’t ready for the broad range of questions they can surely be expected to come up with.
Otherwise you will be just one more contributor to the dumbing down process that is endemic to our present system – to the philosophy of advancing students through the system by simply teaching the test, as one example.
And life forms are both purposive and purposeful, in case that’s a question on the test.
Niles – “And life forms are both purposive and purposeful”
I doubt if that will come up in physics, chemistry or A & P, but you never know.
I also agree with the dumbing down and it being due, in part, to teachers teaching the test.
In Texas students have to pass tests at certain points in their education in order to be able to move forward and eventually graduate. A lot of schools now do exactly that, teach the test, and it has killed a number of formerly good programs.
It has resulted in physics becoming physical science (formerly taught to 8th and 9th graders), chemistry being watered down to about the same level, that of a pre-chem 8th or 9th grade level class (or lower). Biology seems a bit less effected.
Basically what was taught to 8th and 9th graders in the 80’s is now main stream Jr/Sr course work and they now find that level of study difficult.
I went back into the HS for a couple of years, a couple of years ago. My style of teaching concepts was very difficult given the students new propensity to want the tests ahead of time to be able to “learn” the tests. Once they found out that they didn’t need to “learn” the tests in order to pass the tests, they did fine. But it was like pulling teeth to get them there again.
Luckily, my daughters schools don’t seem to teach the tests so much as the subject at hand. They tend to now see the TAKS test as kind of a joke and can’t imagine that anyone might actually fail it.
OK, my work here may be done. Coincidentally (and I do believe in coincidence), I just received the following in my e-mail:
http://www.eol.org/files/pdfs/EOL_Newsletter_Issue2.pdf
An online science text should be built on federated data in layers with a partially frozen core curriculum that can only be changed by consensus. Layers of elaboration (layers of increasingly detail) should lie over the core but they should be segmented.
In this way you can build a core using the framework at NSDL for a generalization, ( http://strandmaps.nsdl.org/cms1-2/docs/index.jsp )call on data from eol.org for detail, and use an instance or an article from National Geographic for an example.
1. Generalizized Framework statement: Species change over time
2. Example detail from “Ask a Scientist”:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00487.htm
a.) Examine diversity of taxa:
http://eol.org/taxa/16098245
3. Lab activity:
http://www.biotech.iastate.edu/lab_protocols/EvoAntiResBact.html
4. Developing medium scale understanding: National Geo. article on Green Sahara
5. Developing long scale understanding from the evolution of whales:
http://www.tolweb.org/Cetacea/15977
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1639514
6. For those who wish to argue over it:
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
If you looked at the developer’s API page at NSDL you will get a feeling of how data sources are evolving to respond to the needs of discovery. If Discovery is extended to include education, and I see no reason it shouldn’t, an online resource for students should be relatively do-able.
The roadblock to this is of course the traditional “ghettoization” of knowledge by professional data hoarders. Fortunately, there is an increasing population of scientists who understand the connectedness of knowledge and the inevitability of being absorbed into the Borg-like world of wikis and federated data. I, for one, welcome….