Stephen Hawking used to regularly attend St Andrew the Great church in Cambridge.
Yeah but are you sure that he wasn't pushed there against his will with his voice output unplugged?
Cougar ...
But again: you have to start somewhere. You’re surely not advocating teaching Bose-Einstein condensates (whatever the hell they are) to kids who don’t yet understand what a liquid is.
I'm talking about acknowledging that Plasma or for that matter Bose-Einstein condensates exist.... and that the answer is >3
Let me jump (and chop your post up a bit) to make that easier to explain...
The first hit suggests that if the question on the test was instead “what are the classical states of matter?” then the problem goes away in its entirety.
Yes... though I'd say that is a kinda minimum bar ... as in "could have tried harder" more than "didn't even try".
Let's imagine an end goal in this is people who don't go on to study science leave school with a knowledge there are 3 everyday states of matter and some more.
People also ask
Are there 22 states of matter?
What are the 7 state of matter?
Are there 15 states of matter?
What are the 11 states of matter?
What are the 19 states of matter?
Are there 50 states of matter?
🤷♂️
As I said a correct answer to "how many states of matter" is >3 ??? or "we don't know" - the latter being a more informative way for someone who doesn't continue to study science to leave school with?
I suppose its a small mercy it didn't get confused with "How many states in the Union" though that last one I suspect it did.
But it is correct, for most practical purposes. If you’re arguing that there’s a dozen other possibilities that the vast majority of the populace won’t even have heard of then I rather fear that you’re being pedantic for the sake of it.
I'm being pedantic because this is SCIENCE ... "for most practical purposes" needs qualifying - it's science not politics. But some examples... for my everyday life the world is flat for all practical purposes. At the very least if they are going to teach something shouldn't it at least not be false without a "for all practical purposes"?
that the vast majority of the populace won’t even have heard of
There is a bit of chicken and egg there.... if they don't hear about them in school science then where would you suggest?
If you’re arguing that there’s a dozen other possibilities
What I'm saying is the question as worded is complete nonsense.
It wouldn't be a lot of work to have phrased it as you suggested ...
If your kid is arguing the same then he either needs to be in a school for the exceptionally gifted or take an autism assessment.
He's 13.... I know you don't have kids but there's nowt strange about a stubborn 13yr old not wanting to write an answer he knows is false.
. he's a bright lad who likes maths and science... and it's 2022 and he has access to that t'interweb jobby so knowing of the existence of this sort of stuff at his age isn't exceptional or rare ... it shouldn't take a special school to just manage not to put him off science.
What would you say if the context was fill in the blank in RE:
"Jesus is the son of G_d" vs
"Christians believe Jesus is the son of G_d"
and some kid who wasn't Christian objected to the former statement and wouldn't fill it out?
History shows us that the Muslim world of the 8th-14th was home to some of the most advanced mathematics and science that the known world possessed, translations of those works formed the basis for some maths that’s till in use today. Those folks subscribed to a very literal translation of the Koran, which- like the bible as a creation myth of 6 days
The Islamic golden age was most definitely not subscribing to a very literal sense of the Koran.
The man who came up with Big Bang Theory, Georges Lemaitre, was a theoretical physicist, mathematician, astronomer, and professor of physics.
He was also a catholic priest, so he definitely believed that God created the Universe.
Which is completely irrelevant because by definition he isn't a creationist nor is the catholic church creationist.
Creationists believe ....
One of the imams at my local mosque informed me that Muslims believe that the world was created as stated in the Old Testament, ie, 6 days (short weekend) when I specifically asked him the question.
and further that ALL life was created before the end of day 6 ... no new life has evolved since then and are dedicated to dismissing any science that proves otherwise.
Muslims can be very good at science including medical science. I certainly wouldn’t have a problem trusting the judgement of a Muslim doctor, nurse, or pharmacist.
Once again .... what the Imam believes isn't creationism from what you said but even if it was that has the same bearing to that Muslim doctor as Kent Hovind has to Georges Lemaitre.
I’m being pedantic because this is SCIENCE …
...for children. Of all capabilities. This method of teaching clearly hasn't stopped your child to go on to discover that there's more to learn. There's always going to be more to learn. As Plutarch apparently said "Children are not vessels to be filled, they are candles to be lit"
What state of matter is fire?
The Islamic golden age was most definitely not subscribing to a very literal sense of the Koran.
You cannot make absolutist statements like this and expect them to be taken at face value as true (because you cannot know what they all thought about the teaching of the Koran in those terms 1200 years ago..) In fact; you are doing exactly the same thing as the teachers that you're complaining about.
I’m talking about acknowledging that Plasma or for that matter Bose-Einstein condensates exist…. and that the answer is >3
The teacher acknowledging it is simply down to the teacher. Is it realistic to expect a third-year high school teacher to even know about Bose-Einstein condensates? I honestly don't know. From my own experience of high school and of dating more than one highschool teacher over the years, it's a coin-flip as to whether they're subject matter experts or are teaching what they read in the textbook at 11pm the night before.
Yes… though I’d say that is a kinda minimum bar … as in “could have tried harder” more than “didn’t even try”.
It took me a bit of googling to find a loophole. Not as easy when on the spot face-to-face. 🤷♂️ The teacher should have known better of course, they seemingly handled it badly.
As I said a correct answer to “how many states of matter” is >3 ??? or “we don’t know” – the latter being a more informative way for someone who doesn’t continue to study science to leave school with?
By that logic, the answer to absolutely every science question would be "we're not really sure." If that weren't the case then science would stop and a lot of people would be out of work.
I’m being pedantic because this is SCIENCE … “for most practical purposes” needs qualifying – it’s science not politics. But some examples… for my everyday life the world is flat for all practical purposes.
I did qualify it, or rather Wikipedia did. "In the 20th century, however, increased understanding of the more exotic properties of matter resulted in the identification of many additional states of matter, none of which are observed in normal conditions.” There's your qualification, there are three states of matter under normal conditions. Whatever 'abnormal conditions' might look like requires further reading, see me after class.
What would you say if the context was fill in the blank in RE:
“Jesus is the son of G_d” vs
“Christians believe Jesus is the son of G_d”
and some kid who wasn’t Christian objected to the former statement and wouldn’t fill it out?
For the sake of arguing on the Internet I'd say that science doesn't require belief.😁 If the question read "Robin was B__man's ward and protégé" would you have a similar objection?
(I do take your point, I'm just being an arse now.)
…for children. Of all capabilities. This method of teaching clearly hasn’t stopped your child to go on to discover that there’s more to learn. There’s always going to be more to learn.
Also, this.
Your kid is interested in science and that's fantastic. He's likely surrounded by thirty other kids who can't be left alone in case they set fire to the gas taps. Welcome to comprehensive education. If he's an over-achiever then he's going to have to get used to teaching targeted at the majority.
... so, conspiracy theories, then?
Teachers. They lie constantly. All of them. All the time. It's a Govt cover up thing I reckon to confuse everyone. SCIENCE!
Do your own research etc etc.
NickC
You cannot make absolutist statements like this and expect them to be taken at face value as true (because you cannot know what they all thought about the teaching of the Koran in those terms 1200 years ago..) In fact; you are doing exactly the same thing as the teachers that you’re complaining about.
I agree not everyone ... just those who had any useful contribution whatsoever to science and maths.
In terms of those that contributed we can because you can't contribute to science/maths if you refuse to believe the evidence in a fundamentalist way.
In the same way as the age of reason in the west the maths and science was part of a larger cultural movement of art and literature. Art that depicts people and animals (and hence is blasphemous by fundamentalist standards) and literature - literature that included celebration of wine and literature that celebrates the open and enlightened aspects and non dogmatic nature of the great polymaths of the Islamic Golden Age.
Different continent and religion but no different to Galileo or Copernicus or for that matter Darwin.
and hence is blasphemous by fundamentalist standards
Knowledge and science and the pursuit of understanding is a Hadith. You clearly don't know anything about the subject. It's OK to say "I don't know" It's not a character flaw.
I agree not everyone
So you were lying then?
"You take the blue pill... the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill... you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."
Let your heart speak, not your head. The heart knows we are being lied to constantly, and that things are hardly ever as they seem, or as the 'authorities' make out.
The head is probably telling you it's all nonsense. But is that because they've got inside your head through decades of relentless propaganda?
The answer is clear. And many a much wiser and more intelligent human than I have said as much.
If you bury what you feel (heart) out of fear of confronting the truth, then don't expect anything to change. Your awakening begins with looking at the truth.
And that's exactly how we got Brexit.
Your awakening begins with looking at the truth
Andy!?!?!?
Sounds just like the kind of bollocks the guy I lived with while at uni spouted.
Sounds just like the kind of bollocks the guy I lived with while at uni spouted.
It page 1, chapter 1, 1st paragraph of “How to be a successful Conspiracy Theorist”.
The answer is clear. And many a much wiser and more intelligent human than I have said as much.
An even wiser human wouldn't have made three pointless sequels.
And that’s exactly how we got Brexit.
Nah, that's how we ended up with the rejection of... oh I see.
Cougar
The teacher acknowledging it is simply down to the teacher. Is it realistic to expect a third-year high school teacher to even know about Bose-Einstein condensates? I honestly don’t know. From my own experience of high school and of dating more than one highschool teacher over the years, it’s a coin-flip as to whether they’re subject matter experts or are teaching what they read in the textbook at 11pm the night before.
It's a 3rd year SCIENCE teacher... I'd say it's not only reasonable but absolutely required?
What purpose is the teacher actually fulfilling if it's what they read in the textbook at 11pm the night before.??
However .. if we assume this is the case then it's surely even more important that the approved course material is actually correct??
HOWEVER: This one exampe is in science, he's had maths tests just as poorly constructed and taken from the approved materials and his maths teacher last year was a VERY good mathematician... (lousy teacher but good mathematician) I'm very confident it would have taken her seconds to see a few of the questions she'd copied and pasted were not solvable.
It took me a bit of googling to find a loophole. Not as easy when on the spot face-to-face. 🤷♂️ The teacher should have known better of course, they seemingly handled it badly.
You aren't a 3rd yr science teacher though... but the point really is that question should never have been in the approved materials in that form and you aren't writing GCSE exams and supporting materials.
To put this into a different context (perhaps more familiar to you) it's like the syllabus and supporting materials are some sort of constant beta but without any feedback loop or continual improvement or UAT.
… so, conspiracy theories, then?
This isn't what I would class as a conspiracy... at least it's a very long stretch it is what makes people vulnerable to conspiracies.
We could say a byproduct of this is our electorate get used and inured to lies and misinformation (oops we just forgot to include those deaths in care homes - There are no media here - I drive my whole family to Barnard castle to test my eyesight) but I personally think that's a byproduct.
Another "conspiracy" is rich Tory's giving contracts to rich, tory donors... but I struggle to see that as some conspiracy, more a fact of life?
When the PPE is useless or the exams and supporting material is full of errors and inaccuracies but noone cares or puts in a feedback loop then perhaps that's bordering on "conspiracy"?
I mean what are the KPI's that these exam companies that provide or commission this supporting material have to meet?
I'd make an educated guess they are being paid by the word/page/question not by how correct or not the questions are.
I know the maths teacher knows her maths... I don't know about the science teacher but the real question here is how they got given those questions to use and how can those questions have made it through any sort of testing?
Suppose they have somehow got through initial testing and are now going through some beta UAT then where is the feedback...
So said science teacher realises the question is incorrect (after its been given in a test). What is the feedback mechanism so that this question gets corrected? (I know YOU don't know that answer but again observations seem to indicate there is no feedback mechanism).
To illustrate: One of my little pleasures is reading self-published authors and the reader is doing beta testing.. use a kindle or similar and there is a feedback mechanism and many/most of the authors then make corrections.
If you want to find a conspiracy then lets have a go... lets look at one of these government paid exam/publishing companies and their director.
So here we have Richard Michael Wooff KEARTON
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/XL2HOH52lmW-Be_ClQfZyYCs4Io/appointments
Director of EDEXCEL.... and a load of Pearson companies...
and from the cabinet office a Richard KEARTON appointed to Member to the Independent Monitoring Board of the Military Corrective Training Centre
https://publicappointments.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/announcements/
..and a Richard Kearton on the board of East Suffolk and North Essex NHS trust pushing a publishers agenda...??
11. Richard Kearton questioned whether, given the successful partnership with Macmillan
at Ipswich, this had been revisited. The Chief Executive stated that he had been
involved in the discussions and there was now no need for Macmillan involvement in
the development.
Want to make any bets if he or any of these companies he's director of have made any Tory party donations for the lucrative contract EDEXCEL get?
but then is that a conspiracy??? Govt contract given to mates, given public money and produce crap?
I bet you believe your government cares about your wellbeing too, don't you.
I bet you think this song is about you
What purpose is the teacher actually fulfilling if it’s what they read in the textbook at 11pm the night before.??
Teaching?
If they were subject matter experts they'd be in academia/industry.
No offence intended to teachers.
I did a joint accredited chemistry and engineering degree, so could (with a PGCE) legitimately teach Physics or Chemistry at A-Level, I've no idea what a Bose–Einstein condensate is, and probably even less of a clue if they'd asked a Biology question.
TINAS - 36 and still regularly flummoxed by the isenthalpic expansion of dense phase fluids.
veganrider
I bet you believe your government cares about your wellbeing too, don’t you.
U OK hun?
ETA to be honest, right now I think the idea that the government cares about our wellbeing is so contrary to the mainstream only a CT would believe it.
Plenty believe it over Convid.
Gonna need a bigger boat.
We could say a byproduct of this is our electorate get used and inured to lies and misinformation
No, absolutely not. To most people* there is a world of difference between simplifying something in order to teach certain concepts (and leaving out others), and mendacious falsehood.
If I say the sky is blue, am I lying? I mean, it's not always, is it? Sometimes it's red and pink. But those are edge cases that aren't important - we appreciate that it is generally true. Humans deal in generalisations because we need to most of the time, we only get into specifics when we really need to. That's why we can use Newton's laws most of the time, unless we really need to include quantum or relativistic effects. There are always relativistic effects but they are so small as to not be significant for most purposes.
* You need to be aware that you aren't typical, Steve, and I don't mean that in a negative way. One of the good things about the modern world is that we are beginning to understand what it means not to be neurotypical, how common it is, how to deal with it, and that it's not a pathology.
It’s a 3rd year SCIENCE teacher… I’d say it’s not only reasonable but absolutely required?
Meanwhile, in the real world, this is ridiculous. Do you suppose that many people want to become experts in their field and then spend all day sitting in front of bored schoolchildren who don't know what a solid is in order to scrape something barely above minimum wage? Get many teachers with "doctor" or "professor" in front of their name in an inner city comprehensive, do we?
You aren’t a 3rd yr science teacher though…
I probably know enough science to teach it to a lower high school class, certainly if I'd had prep time the night before. I expect you do too.
I say this with no disrespect to teachers - as I said, I've dated a couple, I know what a thankless slog of a job it is - but the core skill of a teacher is teaching. Your "lousy teacher but good mathematician" there sounds terrible, I've had plenty of those as a student and I learned jack from them. My A' Level Physics fell three grades in a year for just that reason.
So said science teacher realises the question is incorrect (after its been given in a test). What is the feedback mechanism so that this question gets corrected? (I know YOU don’t know that answer but again observations seem to indicate there is no feedback mechanism).
That's an improvement on "lies" I suppose.
What you either aren't getting or are unwilling to accept is that examples like your states of matter aren't really incorrect. Same with non-compressible fluids or materials getting smaller when they solidify. It's simplified, it has to be because they're teaching basic concepts to kids who know nothing and care less. There are always going to be gotchas and exceptions, you start talking about hypothetical frictionless surfaces at sea level in a vacuum assuming the Earth is a perfect sphere on day one and absolutely no-one will follow what you're talking about.
Is there a feedback mechanism? I don't know, you're absolutely correct there. I would assume that there is some form of iteration, we've had kids sitting GCSEs since 1988 so there's been plenty of time to work it out. 🤷♂️
If you want to find a conspiracy then lets have a go…
I don't, particularly. I was just looking at the thread title.
If I say the sky is blue, am I lying? I mean, it’s not always, is it? Sometimes it’s red and pink. But those are edge cases that aren’t important – we appreciate that it is generally true.
It's not blue, it merely appears to be blue due to Rayleigh scattering. You can work out the scatter quite easily:
Why is little Timmy crying?
Molgrips (please assume I hearted your POST 😉
No, absolutely not. To most people* there is a world of difference between simplifying something in order to teach certain concepts (and leaving out others), and mendacious falsehood.
There is a huge grey area but then where does "missing out deaths in care homes" sit in that?
Is "there are no press here" mendacious ? Or was that just "look I'm making a joke and its funny - obviously noone is meant to believe that"?
If I say the sky is blue, am I lying? I mean, it’s not always, is it? Sometimes it’s red and pink. But those are edge cases that aren’t important – we appreciate that it is generally true.
This depends totally where you say this... as an observation to a painting or a piece of literature ? as a design spec to a matching bike component? As someone paid to write questions and supporting material for science curricula ?
"Molgrips looked over the mess of the battlefield, the stark blue of the sky seemed out of place with the bloody carnage he was observing below it".......
Referring to specific pigments, why is the night sky 3 shades blue in Van Gogh's Starry night? in a history of art .... or for that matter GCSE chemistry...
vs GCSE science "What colour is the sky?" (and a one word space)
At best the "What colour is the sky?" is a trick essay question but it is otherwise a valueless question for GCSE science and would be better as "Why does a clear sky in daytime appear blue?" (which could then be multiple choice or essay)
simplifying something in order to teach certain concepts (and leaving out others)
The two don't need to be mutually exclusive... that is "leaving out others" can be done in different ways to pretending it doesn't exist.
Many of these different ways have been put forwards on here as "when I teach this I explain... " and equally can be found in some of the approved materials.
https://studyrocket.co.uk/revision/gcse-physics-edexcel/triple-particle-model/states-of-matter
(just a google search)
States of Matter
Kinetic Theory Model
The three states of matter are solid, liquid and gas, these can be explained by .....
This can very easily be rewitten as "The Kinetic Theory model has 3 states of matter" OR 1/2 dozen alternates from the top of my head.
One of these reinforces this is a simplified model... one either glosses over it
Even better "The simplified Kinetic Theory model has 3 states of matter"
You haven't specifically stated this in the reply so I am now talking about a generalisation ....
What exactly is the harm in these questions being factually correct?
Where is the downside to making sure the questions / material is actually accurate and consistent?
Humans deal in generalisations because we need to most of the time, we only get into specifics when we really need to. That’s why we can use Newton’s laws most of the time, unless we really need to include quantum or relativistic effects. There are always relativistic effects but they are so small as to not be significant for most purposes.
It's the same deal for "teaching it" though (by which I'm referring to the exam board approved material) ... just ensure the boundary conditions are consistently repeated in the approved material and exams.
* You need to be aware that you aren’t typical, Steve, and I don’t mean that in a negative way. One of the good things about the modern world is that we are beginning to understand what it means not to be neurotypical, how common it is, how to deal with it, and that it’s not a pathology.
So lets play Devils advocate....
On one hand there is an argument that denying/simplifying other states of matter outside of the EdExcel (and whoever else) kinetic model is to make it easier for EVERYONE to understand ... on the other hand "we are beginning to understand what it means not to be neurotypical, how common it is, how to deal with it".
You see the issue here?
This can very easily be rewitten as “The Kinetic Theory model has 3 states of matter” OR 1/2 dozen alternates from the top of my head.
But it's all meaningless bollocks if your audience does not yet understand what "kinetic", "[scientific] theory", "model", "state" or "matter" means. Christ, most adults don't properly understand half of those terms, never mind young teens. You need to accept that your kid tackling his science teacher over plasma cutters is an outlier.
Teaching bright kids, average kids and craft kids requires different approaches. Can you really not comprehend how an opening gambit of "today kids, we're going to learn how the simplified Kinetic Theory model describes 3 states of matter" is going to lose the entire room when what you're actually trying to teach is "solid lumpy, liquid runny"? You're proposing changing an entire teaching approach to benefit one high-performing kid at the expense of 30 others.
Sorry, I'm assuming the Kearton stuff is a very dry piss take of conspiracy theories, as
..and a Richard Kearton on the board of East Suffolk and North Essex NHS trust pushing a publishers agenda…??
is obviously talking about Macmillan cancer nurses in those minutes? (well played if it is)
... I suspect what you're actually doing is getting the arse because you think your lad was treated unfairly. And on that I wholeheartedly agree with you if events played out as you say. But it is a mistake to then project that back onto teaching as a whole.
I'm arguing with antivaxers on twitter ATM
Who are smugly justified about the 'revelations' about Pfizer jab
Gbnews , Toby young, Twitter, Facebook etc etc are amplifying absolute nonsense based on a gross misunderstanding of how vaccines & trials work
Honestly I despair
I bet you think this song is about you
Oh @doris5000, you're so vain 😉
That was worthy of recognition 🙂
I’m arguing with antivaxers on twitter ATM
There has to be a better way to spend your Friday morning.
colonelwax
Sorry, I’m assuming the Kearton stuff is a very dry piss take of conspiracy theories, as
It's 10 mins of google for people with the same name as the Director of the examining board my kid has so it's a bit of a piss-take unless anyone wants to look deeper.
The real point is I wouldn't consider some hypothetical Tory donor or someone who support them in a wider way getting lucrative contracts (or an appointment to the House of Lords) that are so poorly constructed that they can do a crap job as a "conspiracy".
I’m arguing with antivaxers on twitter ATM
Who are smugly justified about the ‘revelations’ about Pfizer jab
If it helps,
https://twitter.com/rachelschraer/status/1580226291214667776
Cougar
But it’s all meaningless bollocks if your audience does not yet understand what “kinetic”, “[scientific] theory”, “model”, “state” or “matter” means.
The issue here is does "not yet understand" because this is GSCE science.... what they get taught here is going to be all they ever get taught on the above unless they are one of a small percentage that then go onto studying in science at a higher level.
Christ, most adults don’t properly understand half of those terms, never mind young teens.
^^^ See the above ^^^^
Conspiracy websites/pages/groups especially creationist ones are FULL of adults who left school without knowing what a scientific theory is...which is/was my whole point on page 1... 😉
You need to accept that your kid tackling his science teacher over plasma cutters is an outlier.
It's 2022 mate ... t'interweb on one hand and on the other plasma, lasers .. mobile phones are now all ubiquitous parts of everyday life (whether we know it or not).
from your other post
It’s simplified, it has to be because they’re teaching basic concepts to kids who know nothing and care less.
Even in the "worst inner city blah blah school" some kid is going to be able to say "Hey Siri - what are the states of matter" or google and someone in that class is going to actually care.
Teaching bright kids, average kids and craft kids requires different approaches. Can you really not comprehend how an opening gambit of “today kids, we’re going to learn how the simplified Kinetic Theory model describes 3 states of matter” is going to lose the entire room when what you’re actually trying to teach is “solid lumpy, liquid runny”? You’re proposing changing an entire teaching approach to benefit one high-performing kid at the expense of 30 others.
That’s an improvement on “lies” I suppose.
According to some of the teachers they do explain there are other states that it's a simplification.
Lets instead address the endorsed supporting material ... lets assume some of the science teachers actually do explain it's a simplification lets not write off every kid who's unfortunate enough to be in one of those classrooms you described AND that some of the "endorsed supporting material" uses more accurate wording including these "scientific theory" mysteries
then why can't it be consistently presented across these exam board endorsed resources (other than the exam boards don't want to pay anyone who can do this)
Is there a feedback mechanism? I don’t know, you’re absolutely correct there. I would assume that there is some form of iteration, we’ve had kids sitting GCSEs since 1988 so there’s been plenty of time to work it out. 🤷♂️
Well if this was something else then yeah... and 1998 and before the privatisation of the examining boards and approved course material from the "educational companies" I'd fully expect there was. This was back in the days of pre-digital... you'd think with it all being digital it would be so much easier to "report a question/statement" and it could be corrected???
Based on the stuff floating about now it really doesn't appear like there is.
I don’t, particularly. I was just looking at the thread title.
So precis (it's not a conspiracy) is the directory of the exam board my son lists his profession as "accountant".
He's also directory and named person of interest on a bunch of other companies (Pearson publishing, education, pension)
There is a quote somewhere from Bill Gates saying something like "It doesn't matter where your IT reports as long as its not finance" and I'd take the same approach here... The person who is directory of a company with a government contract to supply educational material and exams shouldn't be an accountant.
“solid lumpy, liquid runny”
.. obviously useful if they get into medicine 😉
I’ve just read an interview with Randy Blythe, frontman of Lamb Of God, who’s in the process of writing a non-fiction book, and I thought this bit was appropriate;
He continued: "Things have just gotten screwier and screwier and screwier. And I'm thinking, like, 'What is the cause of this? Why are people acting the way they do?' And I think that there's a cult of toxic, narcissistic individualism that has made people think, for some insane reason, that their uneducated opinions are just as valid as those of world-renowned experts. On a bunch of different topics, everything from medicine to foreign policy to economics. I mean, I am in full possession of the fact that I am a man of average intelligence. But I'm smart enough and emotionally stable enough to realize that if I don't know something, I need to refer to someone smarter than myself. But I think in today's societal climate, people just don't want to accept that. And they don't want to accept uncertainty in their lives, so they go looking for answers and wind up finding some kook conspiracy theorist who provides them with a really strange, in my mind, explanation for things for which there are no concrete answers. It's like a security blanket for the witless. I think people don't like feeling insecure, unsure, et cetera, so they're looking for someone to give them an answer that reassures them that none of their problems are their own fault, that someone else is to blame."
This bit in particular I’m going to make a note of for the future: “It's like a security blanket for the witless.”
😎
It’s 10 mins of google for people with the same name as the Director of the examining board my kid has so it’s a bit of a piss-take unless anyone wants to look deeper.
No worries, just checking if you'd deliberately mixed up cancer nurses and publishers, and were, umm, lying.
The issue here is does “not yet understand” because this is GSCE science…. what they get taught here is going to be all they ever get taught on the above unless they are one of a small percentage that then go onto studying in science at a higher level.
Well... so what?
Seriously. Outside of "science at a higher level," about the only application for your average adult to know about plasma being a fourth state of matter is in the Thursday night pub quiz.
It’s 2022 mate …
Good point. Might as well close all the schools, stick 'em in front of YouTube and tell them to work it out.
why can’t it be consistently presented across these exam board endorsed resources
Because People? Some folk are good at their jobs, others not so much.
I’ve just read an interview with Randy Blythe, frontman of Lamb Of God, who’s in the process of writing a non-fiction book,
Given that they are the only gig I've walked out of (they were supporting Heaven and Hell) I'm more impressed by that writing than the band
creationist ones are FULL of adults who left school without knowing what a scientific theory is
You do understand that they think that the scientific model is itself a conspiracy theory, right? Lots of folk who fall into FE or creationism do so because they reject the mainstream science that they were taught in school. Teaching it "harder" isn't going to make less people fall prey to conspiracy theories.
creationist ones are FULL of adults who left school without knowing what a scientific theory is
You do understand that they think that the scientific model is itself a conspiracy theory, right? Lots of folk who fall into FE or creationism do so because they reject the mainstream science that they were taught in school. Teaching it "harder" isn't going to make less people fall prey to conspiracy theories.
Cougar
Well… so what?
Seriously. Outside of “science at a higher level,” about the only application for your average adult to know about plasma being a fourth state of matter is in the Thursday night pub quiz.
or a welder .. but you're missing the point there with regards to conspiracy theory fodder and not knowing what a scientific theory is...
NickC
You do understand that they think that the scientific model is itself a conspiracy theory, right? Lots of folk who fall into FE or creationism do so because they reject the mainstream science that they were taught in school. Teaching it “harder” isn’t going to make less people fall prey to conspiracy theories.
I mostly agree that is what I was posting on PAGE 1 - but I think you/I/we need to determine what "mainstream science" is perhaps???
But even before that I'd chicken and egg the "because they reject the mainstream science that they were taught in school" a bit as you could equally say FE and creationism are the rejection (both of those definitively reject the scientific method) vs Lemaitre
hence my earlier statement about the Islamic Golden Age etc. - you can't believe in a book/version that is literal and immutable in all aspects and do useful science because you have to reject your observations which is where the creationists are.
But let's take the Creationist example .... and what many Americans get taught as "mainstream in the mid west science" - where many states mandate teaching "evolution is just a theory and equal to creationism". (in various forms) and see how that worked out without having a grounding in "what is a scientific theory" and "what is a scientific model".
Teaching it “harder” isn’t going to make less people fall prey to conspiracy theories.
There is nothing intrinsically difficult about teaching kids what a scientific model, hypothesis or theory is... or using working such as "What are the 3 states of matter in the particle model?" over "What are the 3 states of matter".
If you search you find that some of the endorsed material actually does state this.... it's just that some doesn't.
To go back to Cougar's question....
Well… so what?
Well, I'd argue that if you leave school understanding what a scientific theory is and what a simplified model is that in relation the the thread title you are less likely to in the first instance fall victim to a flat earth or creationist conspiracy theory and why no monkeys are giving birth to humans today and in the wider world are in a far better position to understand for example the purpose of Covid vaccinations.
