|
progressiveslol
|
Transcript:
ASHLEY HALL: Top science professors from Australia's universities say the study of science is being fundamentally misunderstood.
The Australian Council of Deans of Science has lashed out at the new national curriculum, saying the draft course for high school students misrepresents the character and core understanding of science.
And they say those responsible for the new curriculum have tried to make the subject more appealing by suggesting the concepts underpinning science are based on opinion.
Emily Bourke reports.
EMILY BOURKE: No school curriculum is set in stone and the same can be said for the national curriculum when it's rolled out across the states and territories.
But the draft for the year 11 and 12 science course has sparked fierce debate in academic circles.
The fear is that the substance of science is being watered down in an attempt to give the subject a more contemporary feel.
JOHN RICE: They make out that scientific knowledge arises as a consensus amongst scientists and in fact in some formulations of that, it goes so far as to make people think that it's possibly simply the fantasies of a bunch of scientists.
And it's certainly not that.
EMILY BOURKE: Professor John Rice is the executive director of the Australian Council of Deans of Science.
JOHN RICE: What people need to look at is the way in which scientists dispute with each other and what it is that they're arguing about. They go by empirical evidence, and if there's any going to be any debates or any discussions, it's simply about the quality of that empirical evidence and the sorts of inferences that you can draw from it.
EMILY BOURKE: How have the syllabus authorities arrived at this thesis?
JOHN RICE: Well I think that they are trying, quite rightly, to stop science being taught as though it is just a bunch of received wisdom. They want to show science as being a much more dynamic thing. And that's a really worthy aim, that's a very good thing to do.
The Australian Council wants people to see that science is not something that's just - somehow everybody knows what's right and you just have to learn it all. But people should understand also that science is a quite unique way of knowing and understanding the world.
It's actually shown its merits by the kind of hugely reliable and powerful knowledge that it brings forward.
EMILY BOURKE: What concern do you have about what this presentation of science will do for the teaching of it at a high school level?
JOHN RICE: It's stands to make people start to believe that science is just no more than some other body of opinion, you know, that it's just like if you were having an argument down the pub, it's no more than that. That's the big mistake.
I mean there's no such thing as being absolutely objective, but insofar as objectivity means anything at all, science has got it, and that's one of its great assets.
EMILY BOURKE: Why would various educational authorities try to change what is clear about science?
JOHN RICE: They regard that - the fact that science is taught and has been taught in such a dry, routine and technical fashion, I think that they mistakenly believe that that lies in an overstated case about its objectivity and therefore they think the cure for that is to loosen up the notion of its objectivity, so you loosen up then the need to go teaching it in such a cut and dried way. I think that's just wrong.
There's something about people philosophising about science and again, that's not a bad thing to do. I think part of the problem with teaching science has been that people have not been so willing to look at the nature of science and the history of science and the things which give science its character.
But yes I think in this case, that's all gone a bit too far.
EMILY BOURKE: Do they not have a point though, in that there are some scientific theories, such as those around climate change, that are contested, that are the subject of vigorous scientific debate and their argument about the subjectivity of science is borne out there?
JOHN RICE: We have no problem with people pointing out that science is a contestable thing, and you have only to look at its history to see that there were great and vigorous debates. And in a climate change situation of course we are in a situation where, although some people want to say that the science is settled, clearly with the level of argument that's going on around the place, there are a lot of things which are not settled.
And I think that's all perfectly appropriate. If that's the point that people want to make, they should make it and we're happy for them to make it.
But if they want to say that scientific knowledge in itself is nothing other than a consensus among a group of scientists, that is wrong. That vastly oversimplifies what has happened in order for people to say that science is settled in a whole lot of respects.
EMILY BOURKE: Time is running out for interested parties to comment on the draft curriculum. Consultations close on the 20th of July.
The Curriculum Authority is hoping to have a final national curriculum document for state and federal ministers to sign off on at the end of the year.
ASHLEY HALL: Emily Bourke with that report.
|
Forum
Pages: 1
AGW loons moving in on science - consensus edu (Read 1583 times)
