Whitewashing the History of Science in Kansas
Science is becoming so unscientific these days, akin in some minds to ideology--or even religion. Lest you doubt it, consider changes being contemplated by the new "pro science" Kansas Board of Education. In essence, members are planning to do to the less savory history of science, what Stalin once did to photographs that included Trotsky: Airbrushing them out of the picture.
Below is a quote from "History and Nature of Science" for grades 8-12. The part in bold font is what the Board plans to excise from the standards. Wouldn't want the kids to have a complete view of science as a human endeavor that sometimes gets things terribly wrong, now would we?
Indicator: "Demonstrates an understanding of the history of science."
Additional Specificity: 1. a. "Modern science has been a successful enterprise that contributes to the dramatic improvements in the human condition. Science has led to significant improvements in physical health and economic growth; however modern science can sometimes be abused by scientists and policymakers, leading to significant negative consequences for society and violations of human dignity (e.g., the eugenics movement in American and Germany; the Tuskegee syphilis experiments; and scientific justifications for eugenics and racism."
I have asked and been told that the excised aspects are not included elsewhere in the proposed revised curriculum.
I think it can be fairly argued that the old curriculum (again, in bold) dwells too heavily (and specifically) on the negative aspects of the history of science, but only generally on the positive. But a proper corrective is not to delete the negative, but add in specifics of scientific advances to achieve a better balance. Remember, this curriculum is explicitly dedicated (in part) to the history of science. This means students should learn the good and the bad, the sublime and the ugly. Science is a human endeavor, after all, meaning that by definition, it is imperfect. This truth should be reflected in classes about its history.
Galileo is mentioned in the guidelines. And you can bet that his "silencing" will be brought up in the classes--which is appropriate since his trial was part of the history of science. But there is a profound irony here. How is excising the harder facts about the history of science any different than silencing Galileo?
The vote is scheduled for Tuesday afternoon Kansas time. If you wish to opine on the matter in a democratic fashion, contact information can be accessed here. If you decide to exercise your democratic right to opine on either side--please, be polite.
Post Script: I now have the entire proposed science standard alterations, available here. What I posted about is found at page 128.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 1:53 PM
24 Comments
24 Comments:
I guess it wasn't enough for them to just ensure Intelligent Design wasn't included -- they have to swing the pendulum over to *their* end of the spectrum!
That said, I would really like to see the full range of changes they suggest for the curriculum at large to put this in some sort of context. It's a little difficult to know for certain what exactly is going on with just this little snippet.
Agreed. I have a partial PDF. Send your private e-mail and I will send you the PDF.
Bernhardt: I just posted a link to the entire document.
Don't you think it's a little ridiculous to start hurling accusations of Stalinism based on the deletion of one paragraph (which, when included, covers both sides of the issue) from a 137-page document? This has zero resemblence to excising Trotsky or silencing Galileo.
But on the whole I agree with you, a history of science curriculum should include some of the dark side, at least in higher grades.
I agree with you but I didn't hurl that accusation. I was making an allusion to Trotsky disappearing from photographs. That's not even close to what Stalinism refers to. I think the allusion is apt. But it isn't an accuasation of utter totalinarianism.
Gee, I don't like blaming science for eugenics and racism. That makes it sound like eugenics and racism are scientifically sound principles, and we have to throw out science in order to not be racists. Nuh-uh, racism is unscientific, it is social and ignorant and science doesn't support it, nor does it "lead to" eugenics, which is also a social idea. Science doesn't really "lead to" anything. There were racists long before people started using science to pursue knowledge.
I also don't like them saying science has been a "succesful enterprise", that makes it seem like its a business.
If I were on a science education board, I would advocate for an "ethics of science" curriculum for the higher grades. In there, I think it would appropriate to discuss evolution v. creation and eugenics.
I have no problem with excising those paragraphs as they aren't really science at all. But again, ethics, including ethics of science, should be taught in high school.
Royale: The history of science should include when science has been abused, just as it should include science's triumphs. So, what you propose would seem relevant to the area of the curriculum that these changes address.
This isn't about evolution. It is about whether science education will be reduced to a whitewash or whether the kids will learn of its astounding power for good, and the need to maintain ethics to prevent evil.
I don't think it is relevant, at least not how I would present the course or remember similar materials when I was in high school.
I think the course curiculum should be based on major breakthroughs in science. Galileo would be relevant for the heliocentric theory, as would Harvey, Galen, Francis Bacon, Darwin, Fleming, etc...i.e. the major scientists throughout Western history and what they did.
Eugenics didn't really coincide with a scientific discovery or a scientist.
From what I remember about high school, we did cover the American eugenics period, but that was in social history, not science or the history of science portions of my science classes.
The closest breakthrough would be Darwin over Lamarck, but again, you're looking at "social Darwinism" which is much more social, than science.
Come to think of it, we didn't cover eugenics in my college level course on evolution. We spent a good several weeks on the history of evolutionary science, but yet never went over the social impact 5 decades AFTER Darwin. We spent maybe a minute or two discussing "social Darwinism" and how that wasn't science, but that was it.
I really don't think eugenics is relevant to a "history of science" course.
Flugeston, alchemy, geocentric theories, and Lamarck - I remember those in my respective history of science lectures.
Eugenics - nah.
Royale said: "Eugenics didn't really coincide with a scientific discovery or a scientist."
Not so. The creator of the theory was Francis Galton, Darwin's cousin and a very famous statistician in his own right. He was explicitly influenced by evolution and Mendel's pea pods to come up with his theory of eugenics, a term he coined, which means "good in birth." This ball was picked up and run with by Charles Davenport, a biologist, who with the help of the Carnigie Foundation, began Cold Spring Harbor. Eugenics was presented in school and university text books during its hey day. This is definitely part of the history of science.
The attrocities are also important to the history of science. The experiments in camps leading to the Nuremberg Code, for example, which is the basis for our Common Rule on human experimentation.
Royale:
"If I were on a science education board, I would advocate for an "ethics of science" curriculum for the higher grades. In there, I think it would appropriate to discuss evolution v. creation and eugenics."
No - creationism should *never* be taught in any schools. Intelligent Design, fine, I can accept that because it's rational and logical, but I don't belive in Hindu creationism, Shinto creationism, Taoist creationsim, and I *certainly* don't believe in Protestant creationism - I certainly wouldn't want a Hindu child to have to have Catholic creationsim shoved down his throat, and I wouldn't want a Baptist child to have to listen to Hail Marys against his parents' wishes. No creationism - it doesn't have a place in science.
If they're going to talk about competing theories, have them stick to Intelligent Design - save creationsim for World Religions.
Wesley,
With all due respect, how many high school or college level science classes did you take? I took 30-40.
Each one began with a history of that field.
Math - Pascal
Physics - Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, ancient astronomy, etc...
Chemistry - Flugeston, alchemy, etc...
Biology - Aristotle, Galen, Harvey, Lamarck, and Darwin.
The focus on each of these were the great scientific minds and their contributions. A history of science class should compile all of them into one course.
In no class, I repeat - none - did we discuss eugenics. Why? Because it's not science, nor did any great scientific mind contribute to it.
Nor did the classes focus on the social impact of the breakthroughs. If it was mentioned, it was only passive references.
OK, biologists, even the relatives of Darwin, were eugenicists. So? What does that prove? Nothing, because it's not science, nor relevant to the great minds of science.
The only problem I have with ethics being taught in high school is that you have no idea who all the teachers will be who teach it, and what in the world they will tell the kids. The parents won't know and will have no control.
It was bad enough for me to re-teach my child about vectors and forces b/c her physics teacher didn't believe in being too compulsive about writing the correct units. I can only imagine the crap I might have had to correct if ethics had been taught. At least, in college the students have a few more years on them and may be a bit more likely to think for themselves.
Royale. Of course eugenics isn't science. But it was once thought to be. For goodness sake, man. If you want a course that is just boosterism, well fine. But that isn't what I thought school was supposed to be about.
Royale:
Classes I took in college:
History of Criminal Law in Britain: We looked at how sociologists on both sides of the issue bias their research on Capital Punishment, both for and against, and how numbers on both sides are terribly misleading, looking back at the actual statistics.
Anthropology - Archaeology in North America: We discussed the "Stupid Indian Syndrom" that early anthropologists used to bias their work against the notion that native people were making sophisticated wooden weapons long before they came up with stone weapons.
Social Psychology: We studied how Fruedian theories were inherently anti-female in regard to the Oedipal and Electra complexes ("penis envy" comes readily to mind) and how sociologists biased their statistics to show that girls with abnormally large clitorises were more prone to suicide and lesbian behavior, making female mutilation in the United States acceptable in some cases.
English Literature: We discussed the way letter writers biased the general public by publishing their correspondence in widely-read newspapers of the time - a good example would be the bias that a friend of Mr. Christian (of the HMS Bounty) wrote concerning Capt. Bligh; some modern scholars believe that the case made against Capt. Bligh was nothing more than well-placed slander.
So okay - the above aren't all sciences, but they all talk about issues that expand beyond simple facts and get into the problems inherent in whatever the given subject was. Bad things happened in the history of science. Why should those bad things be ignored? I can list you a score of books (some few text books I might add) that are scientific in their presentation as they describe why some babies ought to be killed outright at birth (also known as eugenics).
It happened. If I have to learn that Jonathan Swift (my hero!) had his flaws, every scientist should be made aware of the flaws that happened in the past in the name of science.
Whether they really were scientific discoveries or not, it doesn't matter. They were presented as such, and they need to be explored to prevent people from making stupid mistakes over and over again.
Royale: What she said.
Exactly, those are SOCIAL classes.
Eugenics would be a great subject in classes focusing on society, social change, social history, or even the social responsbility of scientists.
I'm not saying it's not important discuss. I believe it is important to discuss.
How many times do I have say this - but it is NOT science, nor the history of science as scientists would present the subject, nor relevant to the history of evolution.
In fact, I would charge you with trying to re-teach the misconception that social Darwinism is somehow a natural by-product of Darwinism, when really it is nothing more than the same old human prejudices that society has dealth with throughout history. Rather, treating social Darwinism as such would be very negative to science.
Social history is important to discuss, but make no mistake - it is NOT science.
Wesley wrote "If you want a course that is just boosterism, well fine. But that isn't what I thought school was supposed to be about."
I want a course on the history of science as the history of science has traditionally been taught.
Should we discuss cannons and warfare in the 14th century Europe if we discuss how chemistry evolved from alchemy? Why not? Warfare happened, people died and there are lessons to be learned.
Should we discuss the ethics of gladiatorial combat because Galen's first subjects were wounded and killed gladiators? Why not? Gladiatorial combat violates many of our modern ethics.
What about ethics of moon colonization because Galileo figured out the heliocentric theory?
What you want is a course on the social impact of science, which as it turns out, would be the history of mankind.
It doesn't "whitewash" anything to exclude eugenics and social Darwinism from the history of science.
re: IQ Tests
Perhaps it might be relevant in the general field of psychology or even scientific methods in general. For instance, discussing the problems bad scientific methodology has encountered in developing
But really, I think the dead-ends that are relevant would be the ones that were "cleaned" up and built on.
Of which, there are plenty to pick from.
Royale: It would be like leaving slavery out of the history of the USA. It would be like leaving the Depression out of the history of economics. These are not minor matters that you believe should be left out of a history of science. Surely, a history of science should inform students why we have ethical rules governing human subject research. Can't do that without bringing up the terribles!
You know what? I actually looked at the course curriculum and the history of science represents a very small fraction of the whole course. Rather, it's a typical high school science course with occasional historical experiments thrown in.
Personally, I think you're objections are very nit-picky.
Out of 138 pages, you want eugenics? Goodness.
Does eugenics belong with a discussion of Kepler's motions? This is ridiculous.
Save the social history for the social history classes and teach science in science classes. That is what school is about.
"inform students why we have ethical rules governing human subject research. Can't do that without bringing up the terribles!"
Which is why I explicitly stated that "ethics" should be incorporated into science curriculum. No one supported me on that, but I think it's wise.
Why do I feel like I'm the only one here who knows what is actually taught in science classes?
But to say that eugenics must be incorporated into a very superficial history of the major experiments is, for lack of a better word, just plain weird.
Better stated, no one opposed you on that Royale. OF COURSE that should be done.
Well, thanks for a nice exchange.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home