Science Education Is No Guarantee of Skepticism
Walker, W. Richard, Hoekstra, Steven J., Vogl, Rodney J., Skeptic (Altadena, CA)
MANY SKEPTICS TAKE A MEASURED AMOUNT of pleasure in the kinds of tasks often set before them: evaluating blurry photographs, conducting laboratory experiments that reduce or eliminate trickery, critiquing flawed science and pseudo-science, and countering the claims of obvious charlatans. Of course, skeptics hope that their efforts aid in advancing science education. (1) In spite of these efforts, survey data from several sources suggests that paranormal belief and pseudoscientific thinking continue to be commonplace. (2)
Skeptics often use these findings to reinforce arguments for more science education. Their argument is based upon the largely untested assumption that increased science knowledge reduces the number of paranormal beliefs an individual holds. However, this assumption may not be valid. Andrew Ede recently argued that science education may do little to raise the level of rational thinking and may, in fact, actually deter it! (3) Recent debates about including creation science and/or eliminating evolution from high school biology curricula (4) are a case in point indicating that many policy makers, members of the public, and a few educators are confused about how to critique and compare theories in order to separate facts from beliefs. Ede identified three reasons why this may be true. (5)
1. Science classes, broadly defined, primarily teach technical skills rather than emphasizing critical thinking. Labs are conducted in which there is a "right answer" that the instructor knows, and it is up to the student to manipulate the project until the "right answer" is realized.
2. Science classes typically review research findings without placing the research in the proper context. This can lead to incorrect assumptions or overgeneralizations.
3. Science implicitly emphasizes its elite status over other points of view. Therefore, data and graphs are accepted uncritically because they are based on "scientific," "clinical," or "laboratory" studies. A lab coat guarantees an aura of expertise.
The overall result is that teaching scientific "facts" is emphasized, while individuals are not given the skills with which to critically evaluate the claims that are presented to them. People are placed in the position of accepting or rejecting claims based on what they are told to believe, rather than being able to critically evaluate the evidence. (6)
A quick inspection of introductory college textbooks supports Ede's basic arguments. As an example, most introductory psychology texts are now in excess of 500 pages, yet fewer than 15 pages are typically spent on research issues. Little or no discussion is given to the importance of evidence or how scientific methods can be used to weigh evidence. Instead, the primary emphasis of many texts is to enumerate as many scientific findings as possible. Since …
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Publication information: Article title: Science Education Is No Guarantee of Skepticism. Contributors: Walker, W. Richard - Author, Hoekstra, Steven J. - Author, Vogl, Rodney J. - Author. Magazine title: Skeptic (Altadena, CA). Volume: 9. Issue: 3 Publication date: Fall 2002. Page number: 24+. © 2009 Skeptics Society & Skeptic Magazine. COPYRIGHT 2002 Gale Group.
This material is protected by copyright and, with the exception of fair use, may not be further copied, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means.