I pointed out that one of the main goals of education is to teach critical thinking and reasonable skepticism. If we are succeeding in that goal, then we should expect our students to ask embarrassing questions, such as what evidence to the elders have to support their myths about evolution and any other "ways of knowing" that conflict with science.
The proposal was dropped.
Clearly, scientific education ought to mean the implanting of a rational, sceptical, experimental habit of mind. It ought to mean acquiring a method – a method that can be used on any problem that one meets – and not simply piling up a lot of facts.
George OrwellBritish Columbia made a different decision. They decided to incorporate indigenous ways of knowing into the high school curriculum. This includes various Raven Myths where magical ravens create the universe (see photo). It's difficult to see how this is going to be received by students who are also learning about science and the nature of science.
I imagine many British Columbia high school teachers will have to face some pretty challenging questions from students who may be a little bit skeptical about magical ravens. I happen to know a few young high school students who would have a field day if those topics came up in class.
Lawrence Krauss has posted an article about the B.C.curriculum and it's well worth reading: Treating Myths as Science.
You should also read Jerry Coyne's take on the subject: Indigenous “ways of knowing” invade Canadian science classes. Both of those scientists have a long-standing interest in the dumbing down of science education.
Note: Some authors and writers have controversial social lives and controversial political positions. You can respect and learn from some of their positions on certain topics without necessarily endorsing everything they say or do.
7 comments :
Larry wrote: "It's difficult to see how this is going to be received by students who are also learning about science and the nature of science."
My reaction would be: if teaching the scientific method is successful, students should be able to understand the difference between science and mythology. If they are not able to do that, the science teacher has failed.
I have never heard of Raven mythology. You linked to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravens_in_Native_American_mythology
but on that page there is no 'evolution', 'universe', 'origin of humans', however I found charming subjects: 'Origin of daylight', 'Origin of daylight', 'Origin of fire', 'Origin of tides', so I don't see what they say about the origin of humans, etc. but it looks like a creation myth.
I see those myths as pre-scientific thinking, and together with the history of science students could learn that science is not a collection of fixed facts handed down from heaven and carved in stone (textbooks), but that scientific facts and theories are the result of an ongoing process and are built on modifications of discarded theories and facts. There is no better way to demonstrate that by confronting students with discarded theories and explain (or let them explain themselves) why those theories are discarded.
So, teaching critical thinking by asking: why were those discarded theories proposed and accepted in the first place? there must have been evidence at the time...
I've been involved with adding Indigenous knowledge to Biology classes at UBC, and I don't see any issues with it. What we've been focusing on are some of the ways that Indigenous peoples interacted with their environments--building clam gardens to manipulate the intertidal zone to make it easier to collect food, or managing fire regimes in the boreal forest. These are pretty practical things that have been studied by scientists in collaboration with Indigenous elders. In particular, with ecology, there is a place to talk about the kind of knowledge you can develop with thousands of years of observation that is really difficult to replicate with experimental methods (at least under current funding regimes).
Frankly, everything I've seen out of Krauss and Coyne makes me they're trying to whip up a panic. For example, Krauss' description of Indigenous knowledge in the grade 12 physics class is actually "...applications of forces in traditional technologies, for example...paddle design". Or "How do First Peoples traditional hunting methods apply the principles of relative motion?" That seems... fine?
https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/curriculum/science/12/physics
I have to agree, as someone in the ecology side of things most of the pushes to incorporate indigenous knowledge relates to these kinds of ecosystem management approaches and nothing to do with claiming the world was in fact created by ravens. The worst i’ve seen in that regard is an attempt to point to perceived similarities between indigenous myth and actual natural history to attempt to show that indigenous communities knew a great deal more about this than previousoy thought, not dissimilar to a christian who accepts evolution pointing to perceived similarities in genesis, and i’ve only seen this from laymen activists and fringe weirdoes and not anyone serious in the topic. I understand that creationism hangs over the minds of many evolutionists like a sword of damocles but I just dont think this is the case in this instance. Regarding Coyne’s post it seems to have nothing to say. Concerning however is a comment under it which seems to imply that the Canadian govt (and people) bend over backwards yo appease indigenous activists because we fear them??? I can guarantee you there is no such fear. This person waxes poetically about how canada is one big strait of hormuz and how these wild aborigines can bring the country to it’s knees. It seems to me that this is just a case of paranoia about the “woke peril”.
linking to krauss AND coyne, yikes
not even that little disclaimer at the bottom can protect your credibility on this old man yells at cloud ass post
@kem: Thank-you for sending the link to the Grade 12 physics curriculum. Many readers won't bother checking it so I thought I post one of the more interesting sections.
"Processing and analyzing data and information
-Experience and interpret the local environment
-Apply First Peoples perspectives and knowledge, other ways of knowing, and local knowledge as sources of information
-Seek and analyze patterns, trends, and connections in data, including describing relationships between variables, performing calculations, and identifying inconsistencies
-Construct, analyze, and interpret graphs, models, and/or diagrams
-Use knowledge of scientific concepts to draw conclusions that are consistent with evidence
-Analyze cause-and-effect relationships "
Is there ever a conflict between "use knowledge of scientific concepts to draw conclusions that are consistent with evidence" and "Apply First Peoples perspectives and knowledge, other ways of knowing, and local knowledge as sources of information"?
Or does First Peoples knowledge and "other ways of knowing" always turn out to be the same as scientific knowledge based on evidence?
I have no problem with "First Peoples perspective and knowledge". It's "other ways of knowing" that give me pause. What would these other ways be?
No. Indians past or present dont as group know anything about nature. except students etc in oure universities. this is done bhy a systematic aggresive attempt by the left wing establishment to raise the intellectual prestige of Indian peoples unrelated to later British and europoean science. ursa about pride and imposing on Canadians a fireign pride . Why not accupuncture or witch doctors. YET they reject with illegal censorship of biblical and creationist and ID ideas which are historical and popular. A oppresive left wing establishment rules my country of Canada.. Getting more extreme all the time. A algorithm if you will.
Post a Comment