Nowadays it is fashionable to defend what is called “New Knowledge”, which would be based upon the scientific knowledge, but that, supposedly, would take us far beyond it. Some people say, for instance, that from the ideas of Einstein it is possible to understand the “relativity of the things” and “perceive new space-time dimensions”. Those ideas are apparently profound and elaborate, though they don’t sustain themselves. They originate from the principle that science has “failed” in solving all the problems, and, because of it, it is necessary to look for a “new sort of knowledge” which would involve “telluric roots” , “interdisciplinary connections”, “holistic approaches”, "ecological criticism”, “planetary conscience”, “feminist and polysexual compromises”, etc. To this “new knowledge” it would also be added “Indian myths”, “exotic cosmologies”, astrology, etc.

Paul Feyerabend (Austrian philosopher), has written in his book “Against the Method” that, at certain moments, parents may chose whatever they want to the education of their sons. But, at other moments they may not. He said, for example, that a parent may opt if his son will be educated according to Christian faith, or Jewish faith, or no faith at all. But, when it comes to astronomy and astrology, he alerted that the question was different, for the parents would have to opt between educating a son according to the western history or not. It means that, although every intellectual production is intrinsically valid, the school must pick up some of them, only. It is not possible to a teacher to teach ‘his/her’ gravity model instead of Newton’s, or ‘his/her’ literature instead of Proust’s.

Some would say that this could lead to a dogmatic posture, because reality does not have a single interpretation. It may be. But you can’t despise the scientific knowledge, or treat it superficially, in reason of that.

Recently, in an educational survey here in my state, it was asked to some basic school teachers what did Galileo conclude from his observations of Saturn moons (!!); Galileo never saw the Saturn moons. He hardly saw the Saturn rings! But no teacher realized the catch in the question. And, what’s worse, when questioned about the catch some said that “Saturn and Jupiter are just about the same thing”. It means, to some extent, that from the point of view of important portions of the state’s teaching staff , the value of the scientific production is relative; as the scientific knowledge changes with time, it is not necessary to understand it in depth. It can, therefore, be used in school only in an instrumental manner, to develop certain mental abilities of the pupils, as the “critical reasoning”. The ones who think so are surely in favor of education. But are they against ignorance?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Argos on 2002-11-02 09:38 ]</font>

New Knowledge, or whatever it is termed, lies in the realm of speculation and/or religion, entitled to no more or no less respect than any other speculation and/or religion, and as such, should not be entitled to be taught as fact, or as mainstream Scientific Theory, anywhere, in any school, or so is my opinion. I am sure many people find those ideas just as enticing as many other speculative ideas which are discussed on this part (Against the Mainstream) of the BA Forum, which also are not taught in most schools. Many people regard their particular religion as fact, which unfortunately results in political pressure on schools to teach religious ideas in science classes. In my own opinion, teaching Creationism is no better than teaching 'New Knowledge'; neither subject belongs in a science class.

I think it's a "pendulum" effect...

When I was a tadpole, textbooks were grotesqueries, full of jingo and myth. We got taught all the usual crud about George Washington and Christopher Columbus, and everything was just so pretty and painted in Disneyland colors.

Then things got ugly for a while, and people started realizing that there are other points of view than Norman Rockwell's.

Now, perhaps, we're trying too hard to teach openness. Still, it's a mighty big improvement over what I grew up being force-fed...

And, again, think like a cheerleader: celebrate what has been learned in the last fifty years! TONS of mathematical science, much of it coming from computers. Information Theory. DNA! We didn't know what happened when Mr. Sperm met Ms. Egg until DNA was discovered. Hubble Photos! Plate Tectonics: we didn't know how the earth worked, and we do today. Fractals! Catastrophe theory! Zero-knowledge proofs!

These are the best of times!

Silas

^ I agree. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] Unfortunatly some stuff is still force-fed crap.. *grumbles* -Colt

__________________
Be not afraid of any man no matter what his size; when danger threatens, call on me, and I will equalize.

Sounds like "cocktail party philosophy". Relativism from relativity, quantum anything-will-happen, quantum can't-know-anything. People trying to make magic out of science.

Yeah of course the ideas have no scientific basis, and often directly oppose the theories that are supposedly the basis, but that doesn't stop people from believing this stuff.

Hmmm...sounds to me like this "New Knowledge" is actually "New Age"-based knowledge, which isn't really new at all. Actually, it does not suprise me that something like this is getting pushed - but that is opening the door to political debates an "P. C." inuendos, so I'll just leave it at that.

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

Science education in the United States is at the level of the educationally-challenged *Third-World nations of the world. Dumbing down the curriculum in the public schools even further than it is now will make our educational level sink deeper. Very, very depressing.

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img]

__________________
"There is in the universe neither center nor circumference." Giordano Bruno Born 1548. Torched 1600.

I see it as a worldwide phenomenon. Though depressing it be, we cannot let this thing go farther. It's up to us to light a candle.

We can't afford to be "waiting for the Barbarians". [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Come on, already! It used to be worse... [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Nebularain, I confess that when I posted this I was thinking that you might like this subject. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

LOL!

I'll admit I believe the universe is created, and I'll admit I believe there is a spiritual realm, but that doesn't mean I follow everything that integrates spiritual practices (it is against my religion to follow practices of other religions - I hope this sentence does not provoke a tangent). Actually, this stuff sounds more like scientology than anything else.

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

But less of it! And the quality of the crap is improving.

To paraphrase Isaac Asimov, what we are learning today is "less wrong" than what we were taught forty years ago.

And a really, really big part of this involves things we're learning, even today. We're peeling back the onion layers, probing for the truth.

Will it be God? Will it be nothing? Will it just be another onion? It doesn't matter: we're a curious species, and we want to learn.

Silas

...well, about 34% of the American public might disagree with that position.

Now wait a minute. Improving crap just means you make it 'crappier' than before, right? Do we rally want that? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]

(Hmm, reminds me of a Carlin skit that I unfortunately can't quote here. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img])

But I agree that having less of it is better. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

[quote]
On 2002-11-02 16:50, Silas wrote:
Agree, except it seems that sometimes, (almost always) the more we learn the more questons are raised. For example...who would have thought Jupiter's moon Io volcanic before robotic probes went there?

BTW, check this out:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science...oks/index.html

Science textbooks are full of errors, all over the world, unfortunately. The roll is extensive. Some authors allege that, if the pupils “construct” their own concepts, “constructivist” books cannot be wrong…There wouldn’t be “wrong” and “right”, but solely “alternative views”, equally valid. It means that saying that Missouri has Atlantic shores, or omitting Alabama in the US map, or asserting that summer occurs because Earth gets closer to the Sun in its elliptical trajectory, and other barbarities, would only be alternative forms, but equally valid, to be assumed by the "liberty of thinking".

I just have to agree.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Argos on 2002-11-03 16:23 ]</font>

Thanks for the link, Argos. The errors at the site given by CNN are just horrendous. They have light being refracted the wrong way, incorrect physics, diagrams that make no sense. It's just appalling what's getting into science textbooks and passing as truth! I'm not sure that it was ever any better, unfortunately.