Part 6: But we need scientific literacy! Don’t we?
Some want to object to the idea that we shouldn’t be coercing people into learning things they do not want to learn. They say some version of the following: “We don’t need more people ignorant of science and mathematics being involved in society. We want informed voters! We need people who understand global warming!”
But it’s not global warming (or science generally or any subject specifically) citizens need to know the details about. Whatever argument you can make for the importance to the voter/citizen of understanding global warming I can point to a thousand other subjects that are just as important: statistics, AC electricity generation, thermodynamics, food chemistry, immunology - the list is long. And it’s all equally unimportant for most of us most of the time. What we all really need to know together (aside from the stuff we are really interested in) is the knowledge required that allows us to make a decision. Global warming is a significant issue, sure. But there are many significant issues.
The typical person, like me, no more needs to know the details about Global Warming or any other major issue than they need to know the details about how penicillin can cure meningococcal meningitis. In either case, all I need to know, at the appropriate time is what the people who do know are saying. If the expert scientists in global warming give good reasons that it is occurring - I don’t need to know all the reasons (though I could check them if I tried) - I will know global warming is a thing to be concerned about because the people who do know the details, tell me. This is not deferring to their authority it is merely using my critical analysis to judge that they know. I know I can always check their reasons if I cared to - because it’s science. So if the expert doctor tells me my headache is due to bacterial meningitis, then I don’t have to know the mechanism of action of penicillin to take it. I can defer critically looking up the details. The relevant question I am asking myself here is: the person informing me - do they know? And if I have no criticism of the idea that they do, I should believe them.
And all that is an argument to say: trying to force children to learn anything at school - even science - just cannot be as fruitful as allowing them the freedom to choose to learn whatever they want, whenever they want, wherever they want. Having a population that understands science may be desirable. Having a population that believes scientists when they talk about science might be even more desirable. But none of this means that we should be forcing kids into classes to learn things they do not want to learn.
This project should happen now - but I know that culture moves more slowly than an aircraft carrier turns. In a better world, school would not be compulsory. Learning would occur as it always does: by choice. Schools could still exist but things would be almost unrecognisable. Schools would be more like universities (although universities have severe problems too) in the sense students could come and go as they pleased. Students in this somewhat better world would choose to attend lessons that teachers chose to give. And individual teachers could design their own curriculum (not mandated by their department, or school, or government mandated office). Perhaps they could design the content of the curriculum in partnership with their students on topics of mutual interest to them both. Would it be hard? No harder than teaching currently is. Indeed, there would be many ways it would be far easier and far more rewarding for all involved. The words "teacher and student" could become interchanged as people began to work on solutions to problems together.
Part 7
Some want to object to the idea that we shouldn’t be coercing people into learning things they do not want to learn. They say some version of the following: “We don’t need more people ignorant of science and mathematics being involved in society. We want informed voters! We need people who understand global warming!”
But it’s not global warming (or science generally or any subject specifically) citizens need to know the details about. Whatever argument you can make for the importance to the voter/citizen of understanding global warming I can point to a thousand other subjects that are just as important: statistics, AC electricity generation, thermodynamics, food chemistry, immunology - the list is long. And it’s all equally unimportant for most of us most of the time. What we all really need to know together (aside from the stuff we are really interested in) is the knowledge required that allows us to make a decision. Global warming is a significant issue, sure. But there are many significant issues.
The typical person, like me, no more needs to know the details about Global Warming or any other major issue than they need to know the details about how penicillin can cure meningococcal meningitis. In either case, all I need to know, at the appropriate time is what the people who do know are saying. If the expert scientists in global warming give good reasons that it is occurring - I don’t need to know all the reasons (though I could check them if I tried) - I will know global warming is a thing to be concerned about because the people who do know the details, tell me. This is not deferring to their authority it is merely using my critical analysis to judge that they know. I know I can always check their reasons if I cared to - because it’s science. So if the expert doctor tells me my headache is due to bacterial meningitis, then I don’t have to know the mechanism of action of penicillin to take it. I can defer critically looking up the details. The relevant question I am asking myself here is: the person informing me - do they know? And if I have no criticism of the idea that they do, I should believe them.
And all that is an argument to say: trying to force children to learn anything at school - even science - just cannot be as fruitful as allowing them the freedom to choose to learn whatever they want, whenever they want, wherever they want. Having a population that understands science may be desirable. Having a population that believes scientists when they talk about science might be even more desirable. But none of this means that we should be forcing kids into classes to learn things they do not want to learn.
This project should happen now - but I know that culture moves more slowly than an aircraft carrier turns. In a better world, school would not be compulsory. Learning would occur as it always does: by choice. Schools could still exist but things would be almost unrecognisable. Schools would be more like universities (although universities have severe problems too) in the sense students could come and go as they pleased. Students in this somewhat better world would choose to attend lessons that teachers chose to give. And individual teachers could design their own curriculum (not mandated by their department, or school, or government mandated office). Perhaps they could design the content of the curriculum in partnership with their students on topics of mutual interest to them both. Would it be hard? No harder than teaching currently is. Indeed, there would be many ways it would be far easier and far more rewarding for all involved. The words "teacher and student" could become interchanged as people began to work on solutions to problems together.
Part 7