I agree. Though I definitely think there should be more space in the
curriculum outside science lessons for critical appraisal of the media,
science, politics, religion etc - for children (and adults) to explore
why we believe what we do, and how we interpret the messages around us
is very important, IMHO. I always used to think media studies was a
waste of time (as a scientists) until I did a diploma in science
communication...

Anyway, even if you just pick on creationism - which creation myth do
you mean?
http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html 
K


-----Original Message-----
From: psci-com: on public engagement with science
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Richard Wiseman
Sent: 18 September 2008 14:04
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PSCI-COM] Royal Society in the news

Hi
Well, I have spent lots of time looking at the alleged evidence for all
sorts of strange ideas, and think that there is a huge problem with
having science teachers explaining why mainstream scientists are not
convinced by the evidence for such fringe claims.  The main problem is
that there are lots of them.  For example, 50% of the population believe
in telepathy, and about 30% in ghosts.  Then there are UFOs, Big Foot,
precognitive dreams, psychic healing, paranormal effects of prayer, and
angels, to name just a few.  Having to explain why the evidence for each
is unconvincing would be complicated and time consuming.  In principle,
it would be good to think that this could happen in science lessons, but
I suspect that such lessons are already quite full, and devoting time to
these fringe topics would mean even less time for the existing
curriculum.  I guess you could just choose one - such as creationism or
ESP - but it is not clear to me how you would made that choice without
being biased.  My vote would be for something like a a separate course
in critical thinking, or a book exploring how to scientifically evaluate
the (often v poor) evidence for such claims.
Best
Richard


on 18/9/08 13:26, jenny koenig at [log in to unmask] wrote:

> I guess you will all be aware of the resignation of the Royal 
> Society's director of education. I think this has important 
> consequences for science communication as well as science education. 
> Dr Keith Taber of the Faculty of Education in Cambridge has written an

> email response to the Times Educational Supplement which I received 
> through a science education list and I've copied it below. I think it 
> makes a very strong, evidence-based case and in my view the same 
> principles apply to science communication with adults as they do to 
> education in schools. To me the Royal Society's decision sends a 
> message that scientists aren't prepared to even listen to people. If 
> that is the case then we will simply be "preaching to the converted".
> 
> One of my interests is engaging complementary and alternative health 
> practitioners in the science of pharmacology and that is the reason I 
> worry about this sort of thing. Any comments/advice from others 
> involved in potentially contentious fields would be welcomed!
> 
> Dr Jennifer Koenig
> 
> Consultant
> Science ETC
> www.sci-etc.co.uk
> 
> 
> Keith's email is below - from the "learning-science-concepts" mailing 
> list.
> 
> On Sep 17 2008, Dr. Keith S. Taber wrote:
> 
>> Copy of email sent to the Times Educational Supplement
>> 
>> I was saddened to learn of the Royal Society's decision (announced 
>> today at http://royalsociety.org/) to ask Prof. Michael Reiss to 
>> stand down form his post as Director of Education following 
>> widespread coverage of remarks he made about teaching evolution to 
>> students with creationist world-views. The gist of Prof. Reiss'
>> argument was that the appropriate response to students who raise 
>> their beliefs in class when they are taught the scientific theory of 
>> natural selection should not be to ignore, dismiss or ridicule the 
>> students' views, but rather to respect their ideas as a starting pint

>> for discussion, and to challenge them through the scientific 
>> arguments that have led to evolution by natural selection becoming 
>> some a strongly supported and widely accepted model for how life on 
>> earth has developed.
>> 
>> Prof. Reiss' comments are said to have damaged the reputation of the 
>> Royal Society. As it seems accepted that, as Prof. Reiss has made it 
>> absolutely clear, he was not suggesting teaching creationist ideas 
>> (as some misleading media reports implied or suggested); and that his

>> views about the status of evolution (as a successful scientific
>> theory) and creationism (as something that is not scientifically 
>> supported and so not a scientific theory or model) seem totally in 
>> keeping with the broad scientific consensus, it is hard to see how 
>> his comments are objectionable. If the mis-reporting was seen as 
>> potentially damaging to the Royal Society, then it should have taken 
>> the opportunity to use the widespread media interest to reiterate and

>> explain its own position.
>> 
>> I can only conclude that what was found objectionable about Prof.
>> Reiss' position was that he was using his vast experience as a 
>> science teacher and researcher of science classrooms to suggest that 
>> certain approaches naively offered by some academic scientists with 
>> no experience of teaching in the school system, are likely to be 
>> ineffective. Rather, he draws upon the widely accepted, 
>> evidence-based position adopted by most science educators, that the 
>> best way to develop children's thinking is to give them the chance to

>> talk about their ideas, and to explore and understand why scientists 
>> have come to understand things differently. This general principle is

>> central to science education, and is strongly supported by research
>> evidence: just as natural selection is in biology. It reflects the 
>> scientific values of maintaining an open mind, and of considering and

>> evaluating evidence, that we hope to instill in students. Of course, 
>> children with strong creationist views may not be prepared to 
>> question their existing ideas if these are central to their cultural 
>> and family identities: but Reiss' recommendations make more sense 
>> than simply dismissing their ideas as irrelevant and telling them to 
>> instead learn something that contradicts their own strong 
>> convictions. Children's creationist views may be irrelevant to 
>> science, but they are highly significant to both their learning of 
>> the science, and their developing attitudes to science as a source of

>> reliable knowledge. Those FRS who decided to ignore this and call for

>> Reiss dismissal, seem to be forgetting that their own expertise is in

>> science, not schooling, which is presumably why they appointed a 
>> science teacher and educational researcher to high office in the 
>> Society.
>> 
>> In summary, the decision to dismiss Reiss seems to suggests that some

>> academic scientists feel they know best in education, and are not 
>> prepared to listen to experts informed by a different field of 
>> research than their own. I fear that it will be this decision to sack

>> rather than explain which could bring the Royal Society in disrepute,

>> not the inaccurate reporting of a talk in the media. In my view, the 
>> Royal Society has today done a disservice to science education in the

>> UK, and so indirectly to the future of science.
> 
> **********************************************************************
> 1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example, 
> send an email to mailto:[log in to unmask] with the following
message:
> 
> set psci-com nomail -- [include hyphens]
> 
> 2. To resume email from the list, send an email to 
> [log in to unmask] with the message:
> 
> set psci-com mail -- [include hyphens]
> 
> 3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with 
> the
> message:
> 
> leave psci-com -- [include hyphens]
> 
> 4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including 
> list archive, can be found at the list web site:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html
> 
> 5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication

> and science and society can be found at http://psci-com.ac.uk
> 
> 6. To contact the Psci-com list owner, please send an email to 
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> **********************************************************************

--
Professor Richard Wiseman
Psychology Department
University of Hertfordshire
College Lane
Hatfield
Herts
AL10 9AB

Tel: 077 909 05219

www.richardwiseman.com
www.quirkology.com

**********************************************************************
1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example, send
an email to mailto:[log in to unmask] with the following message:

set psci-com nomail -- [include hyphens]

2. To resume email from the list, send an email to
[log in to unmask] with the message:

set psci-com mail -- [include hyphens]

3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the
message:

leave psci-com -- [include hyphens]

4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including
list archive, can be found at the list web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html

5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication
and science and society can be found at http://psci-com.ac.uk

6. To contact the Psci-com list owner, please send an email to
mailto:[log in to unmask]
**********************************************************************

This communication is from Cancer Research UK. Our website is at www.cancerresearchuk.org. We are a charity registered under number 1089464 and a company limited by guarantee registered in England & Wales under number 4325234. Our registered address is 61 Lincoln's Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PX. Our central telephone number is 020 7242 0200.
 
This communication and any attachments contain information which is confidential and may also be privileged.   It is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s).  If you are not the intended recipient(s) please note that any form of disclosure, distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it or in any attachments is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete the email and destroy any copies of it.
 
E-mail communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error free, as information could be intercepted, corrupted, amended, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses.  We do not accept liability for any such matters or their consequences.  Anyone who communicates with us by e-mail is taken to accept the risks in doing so.

**********************************************************************
1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example,
send an email to mailto:[log in to unmask] with the following message:

set psci-com nomail -- [include hyphens]

2. To resume email from the list, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message:

set psci-com mail -- [include hyphens]

3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message:

leave psci-com -- [include hyphens]

4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including list archive, can be found at the list web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html

5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication and science and society can be found at http://psci-com.ac.uk

6. To contact the Psci-com list owner, please send an email to mailto:[log in to unmask]
**********************************************************************