Excellent overview. My ony concern is where you write, "I am assuming that the WE audience has insufficient prior > knowledge to make the validity judgments themselves." Students and untrained > teachers in developing countries? Inadequately trained teachers in developed > countries? People coming into our community?
I want the ability to judge science vs. pseudoscience debates to be a fundamental part of education. I don't expect anybody to get to the point of judging science vs. science debates, which even scientists cannot do until the needed data arrive. The fallacies of pseudoscientific debate are not too many to grasp. They include cherry-picking data, selective quotation, refusing to provide sources, failing to do their own research, pretending to be greater in number than they are, demanding proof, accusing scientists and others of massive conspiracy, claiming that the slightest error invalidates a whole field of research, and others. I can explain each, and provide detailed examples. I intend at some point to get a book project going on this subject at an appropriate grade level. On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 05:08, Jan Visser <[email protected]> wrote: > I have no time at present to check the detail of all the information > provided in newspaper articles and am particularly unable, when reading a > newspaper report, to check the quality and veracity of the interpretation of > what actually happened. I can provide a guide to the literature, the attacks on the science, and the reporting, but because of some hostility to me doing that, I won't to begin with. I have created two new pages, one on Global Warming, and one on Evolution, listing a selection of books and DVDs on each subject in alphabetical ordero all available on Amazon, and most with Look Inside browsing provided. I invite a discussion, where we can play out a version of what we hope to get schoolchildren to do. > I do know, however, and have evidence to back it up, that the scientific > community is quite capable of identifying breaches of ethics, reporting > them, and taking appropriate measures to repair the damage. One need but go > through the past several years of Nature and Science to find the various > instances in which published papers were retracted, sometimes at the request > of the researchers themselves when they found that something had gone wrong > in carrying out their research, sometimes following the discovery of > deliberate fraud. I know few other areas of human endeavor where such > rigorous self-control within the community exists. Typically, newspapers, > whatever their high quality from on investigative journalism point of view > may be, should not be considered reliable sources for validation. The final > validation of recognized error or established committed fraud is still best > done by the scientific community itself. I thus look forward to reading > about the outcome of such processes in the relevant scientific literature. Well said. > On the basis of what I know so far (and knew already before this > conversation started), there is reason to be alert to the possibility that > the mix of politics, science, and corporate interest that surrounds climate > change, in addition to the propensity in humans (members of the general > public) to wish to believe what they already believe, may potentially lead > to biased research and even fraud (as well as to advocacy that is based on > erroneous interpretation of scientific findings and conclusions). I would include other factors, which I will not mention here in order not to distract anyone from the main point. > Alertness > to such dangers has always been a key ingredient of the collective mindset > within the scientific community. In some cases the danger is more prominent > and more obviously present than in others. Investigative journalism plays a > role, though, just as it does in politics. It is sometimes at the origin of > identifying fraud. Besides, newspapers, when they have good science > reporters on their staff, also play a great role in bringing the results of > research and their societal implications to the attention of their > readership. So, wait till the Times reports on what eventually appears in > the relevant literature and then check the newspaper report against the > cited literature if, as a scientist, you want to help the public understand > the issues well and are thus willing to write letters to the editor to back > up or challenge the reporting. We must ask why and to what extent the Times can be considered authoritative, given that it makes mistakes and has a point of view. This will be part of a more general evaluation of sources. > Validity of what is offered in an open environment like WE is very important > from an educational point of view. Users of WE must be able to trust that > the utmost has been done to ensure the validity of what they get offered. In > saying so, I am assuming that the WE audience has insufficient prior > knowledge to make the validity judgments themselves. If that assumption is > wrong, then we should perhaps clearly state upfront (on the WE home page) > what we expect our target audience to be capable of. We should certainly > have internal agreement on it. This may be worth some debate, if it is not > already entirely obvious. I began to address these issues above, but we will have to say much more about it. > Jan > > -- > > Jan Visser, Ph.D. > > President & Sr. Researcher, Learning Development Institute > > E-mail: [email protected] > > Check out: http://www.learndev.org and http://www.facebook.com/learndev > > Blog: http://jvisser-ldi.blogspot.com/ -- Edward Mokurai (默雷/धर्ममेघशब्दगर्ज/دھرممیگھشبدگر ج) Cherlin Silent Thunder is my name, and Children are my nation. The Cosmos is my dwelling place, the Truth my destination. http://www.earthtreasury.org/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WikiEducator" group. To visit wikieducator: http://www.wikieducator.org To visit the discussion forum: http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
