I sense a big confusion between quantity and quality in this thread…
You are still dodging. Nobody doubts that kids will form personal opinions about some topics—but we were talking about pedagogy. Do you know of any public school curriculum or course guide which encourages “You kids decide for yourselves what really happened. You can pick and choose.” after telling them that Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas? No you don’t. Perhaps the “smart” students will decide that Kennedy wasn’t shot at all.
The public schools teach (or should teach if any are failing to do so) the major conclusions of the academy concerning math, science, history, and other fields. There’s rarely a surplus of class time for encouraging the discussion of conspiracy theories, pet ideologies, and tangential topics.
The kids who come from families which support intelligent design positions are already getting that ID promotion at home. It would serve no purpose for the public good to add it to the classroom as well.
Are we teaching the academic consensus is one assassin and one bullet. What if a kid raises other theories? Does the teacher then drive to discredit the theory?
What ever happen to critical thinking?
Wait, you’re an assassination conspiracy theorist too? Are you also a 9/11 truther, a birther, and an anti-vaxxer?
I know so many public school teachers who feel overwhelmed by how much material they are expected to cover in insufficient class time with far too many students who are not even educationally prepared for that level of material. Imagine if those over-worked teachers had to also be prepared to teach “critical thinking skills” applied to 9/11 conspiracy theories, anti-vaxxer doctrines, Roosevelt-planned-Pearl-Harbor-attack, and so many other “controversial topics” so that the “smart” kids can make up their own minds. Wow.
Unless we taught it as an example of pseudoscience…
Yes, you did:
No protein fails to bind. It’s just a matter of affinity.
No, I’m pointing out the fact that proteins are extremely sticky. How can you deny this simple fact?
pseudoscience, denier you guys have all the instant discredit spin words down.
A high school course in “Foundations of Science” has great potential for producing a more science-literate citizenry and electorate. Freshman high school students immediately dive into Biology 101 or Earth Science 101 but learn very little about the history of science and how it became such an effective means of understanding the world. Perhaps more emphasis on why science matters could then segue into examining why so many pseudoscience ideas are popular and why we know that they are rubbish. Far too many Americans think that scientists are just “overeducated academics” and that science is just a set of subjective personal opinions.
Using pseudoscience case-studies could be riveting as well as educational.
So you are trying to discredit me? How could I not know? Just maybe I did know and you assumed I didn’t. You assume a lot.
I’ve done so in an adult-ed class. We concentrated on medical, evolution, and animal-rights pseudoscience. We also covered the far more gray area of modest papers being insanely overinterpreted by the news media, particularly university press offices.
If you did know, you never would have referred to binding like you did:
How could you have done all of this “research” and never encountered a single homodimer or other homomultimers?
No assumptions are needed.
You make a LOT of false claims about objective facts, Bill. That should tell you that the conclusion you’re trying to justify is untenable.
It would be superflous for us to try to discredit you. You succeeded in discrediting yourself by spewing stultifying pseudoscience years ago. And pseudoscience isn’t a “spin word”, but the proper term to use to describe people who merely pretend to do science either by putting on an act, or who consistently fail (for whatever reasons of subconscious cognitive biases) to abide by proper scientific standards of rigour, such as replicability, peer review, documentation etc. etc.
Dressing up in a labcoat, shirt, and tie, putting glasses on, getting a nice comb-over, and getting a “doctorate” in a field you think is all bullshit (or worse, at a diploma mill) just so you can call yourself Dr. Dr. Dingbat, PhD and pretend to have some authority when you make claims no experiment can support.
Why then are even bringing up sticky proteins if it has nothing to do with the argument?
Rum do you understand what labeling is?
You appear to read and interpret what you want, make irrelevant and trivial points and try to act like the expert.
Like this point you tried to refute with homodimer and homomultimer which had nothing to do with the point I was making with Tim. Then you bring up sticky proteins say I deny them and then admit that sticky proteins are not material to the discussion. I don’t think this discussion is productive.
I examine the evidence. I act like an expert because I am an expert. Why are you pretending to know things you obviously don’t know, Bill?
It has everything to do with your claim. It’s not my fault that you don’t understand protein folding and binding.
Discussion continues here: Darwin Devolves: The End of Evolution?