Not a Republican but see one risk and one flaw in teaching kids to rely 100% on science: there are strategic reasons to make some decisions which you miss if you rely solely on “science” sources. The biggest risk here is if kids are taught to trust anything called “science” but not how to differentiate between good studies and bad studies - there are journals that will publish anything, and it’s easy to manipulate people if they cannot effectively differentiate between good and bad studies, which requires a deeper understanding of statistics and ability to think critically about the variables tested, controlled, and overlooked or ignored.
That’s the thing though, outside of studies published in journals where you look up their ranking and it’s high enough that you trust the peer review, how do you tell the difference between imperfect and flawed in a way that renders the conclusion useless to your use case? It’s not a rhetorical question, that’s what I’m saying requires deeper knowledge and where you should not trust it alone without having qualified help review it for you. And without the help, yeah it’s just as well to go without.
You disagree with my statement that is not actually contradicted by anything in your statement, apart from your open acceptance of flawed studies?
My question then is this: what do they teach kids to allow them to spot flaws and what do they teach them as the method for determining who is reputable? Beyes theorem? How to control for multiple variables? I don’t actually know whether they go into this or tell kids to JUST trust an authority.
Flawed studies have done all kinds of harm over the years before being retracted. Linking vaccines to autism for one.
You disagree with my statement that is not actually contradicted by anything in your statement, apart from your open acceptance of flawed studies?
Because your statement offers no viable alternative and basically condemns following scientific literature unless you are a trained professional on the grounds that some studies might be flawed.
Which is what I tried to point out in both of my prior comments to no avail.
My question then is this: what do they teach kids to allow them to spot flaws and what do they teach them as the method for determining who is reputable? Beyes theorem? How to control for multiple variables? I don’t actually know whether they go into this or tell kids to JUST trust an authority.
That question is impossible to answer. Even if we were only talking about the US, but much less globally. What we can agree on is that it’s probably not enough in most places.
Flawed studies have done all kinds of harm over the years before being retracted. Linking vaccines to autism for one.
And the attitude of “one study has been flawed so I won’t trust science ever again” is something that you predict to be a better viable alternative?
I think you misunderstood. The article doesn’t suggest that children are taught to rely on science, but instead suggests they use critical-thinking skills.
Not a Republican but see one risk and one flaw in teaching kids to rely 100% on science: there are strategic reasons to make some decisions which you miss if you rely solely on “science” sources. The biggest risk here is if kids are taught to trust anything called “science” but not how to differentiate between good studies and bad studies - there are journals that will publish anything, and it’s easy to manipulate people if they cannot effectively differentiate between good and bad studies, which requires a deeper understanding of statistics and ability to think critically about the variables tested, controlled, and overlooked or ignored.
It’s still better than relying on literally anything else. Doesn’t have to be perfect.
That’s the thing though, outside of studies published in journals where you look up their ranking and it’s high enough that you trust the peer review, how do you tell the difference between imperfect and flawed in a way that renders the conclusion useless to your use case? It’s not a rhetorical question, that’s what I’m saying requires deeper knowledge and where you should not trust it alone without having qualified help review it for you. And without the help, yeah it’s just as well to go without.
If the study has major flaws it’s relatively easy to spot if you have an idea what to look for. You don’t need special education for that.
It’s not even a problem if you consider reputable sources in the first place, which, again, is relatively easy to do.
Looking at the alternative, even a flawed study is better than a simple opinion piece.
So yeah, I disagree with everything you said basically.
You disagree with my statement that is not actually contradicted by anything in your statement, apart from your open acceptance of flawed studies?
My question then is this: what do they teach kids to allow them to spot flaws and what do they teach them as the method for determining who is reputable? Beyes theorem? How to control for multiple variables? I don’t actually know whether they go into this or tell kids to JUST trust an authority.
Flawed studies have done all kinds of harm over the years before being retracted. Linking vaccines to autism for one.
Because your statement offers no viable alternative and basically condemns following scientific literature unless you are a trained professional on the grounds that some studies might be flawed.
Which is what I tried to point out in both of my prior comments to no avail.
That question is impossible to answer. Even if we were only talking about the US, but much less globally. What we can agree on is that it’s probably not enough in most places.
And the attitude of “one study has been flawed so I won’t trust science ever again” is something that you predict to be a better viable alternative?
I think you misunderstood. The article doesn’t suggest that children are taught to rely on science, but instead suggests they use critical-thinking skills.
The class is dedicated to developing critical thinking skills.