New Ohio law allows students to be scientifically wrong.

[Subduction Zone]

I can imagine some parents would make their children do that extra work. I'd probably grow resentful while having to constantly write two sets of answers if I were that child, honestly - even if I weren't pretending, and honestly believed those religiously acceptable answers to be true.

It may end up backfiring if one wanted to keep their child ignorant. Comparing the two never works out well for the literalists.

 

[Salvador]

If a hypothesis were unverifiable, then such conjecture is useless, hence, I'd like educators nullifying unverifiable claims as being "unknowable"; hypothesis supported by evidence widely accepted by a consensus of scientists proving the hypothesis as "correct theory" should be taught in science class.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The replication crisis often makes the scientific claims no more valid than the religious. Faith in the science produced by a broken and fractured academy is misplaced.

I would prefer that biology teachs that Male and female are the TWO sexes rather than that gender it is an oppressive construction of the paitriarchy and that sex is not a real thing. I think an appeal to the common historical understanding of sex and gender as outlined by the bible, showing 5000 years of human consensus on the sublect to be a valid argument.

You wish a science that says that they have NO IDEA what 95% of the universe is made of to be held as sacrosanct?

You wish to teach physics that can not agree if there is one universe or an infinite number of universes yet a supernatural perspective is not allowed?

To teach a cosmology that has NO basis in fact but is ALL conjucture often opposed by a small but credibible number of disentures is also a problem.
.........................

Its not like that. In high school or before high school students should learn some cell biology, Chemistry, some Geology, Math, Geometry and Physics. They are hard sciences. This does not require learning in detail all of the periods of Earth's development and its geological strata or several cosmological models.

They should also learn History, a foreign language, how write research and properly document it, how to make logical arguments, how to learn about contracts, how to research laws, how to manipulate data in spreadsheets, how to cook, how to use basic tools and power tools, first aid, some nursing skills, how to restore a computer operating system from a backup, work safety such as ladder safety, some electrical skills such as using a voltmeter, how to count in binary, how to drive a vehicle, how to care for a pet, how to protect their identity from identity thieves, how to stretch and strengthen their muscles safely, how to read about medicines and consider the effects of medicines. There are a lot of things to learn for the amount of money and time being spent on schooling.

I am in favor of charter schools. I don't think the current public school system can be reformed well without them. I think we're going to have to give up on the way we're trying to improve the public schools merely through standardized testing. I do not think the charter schools should be permitted to teach religion. If they receive charter funds then they should only teach non-religious instruction.

Creation Science is religious instruction. Parents can easily teach it to their kids. It takes a few sentences. There's almost no effort involved. Its not a life skill and public schooling is not needed for it, nor should taxes sponsor it.

The replication crisis (or replicability crisis or reproducibility crisis) is, as of 2019, an ongoing methodological crisis in which it has been found that many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to replicate or reproduce. The replication crisis affects the social and life sciences most severely.[1][2] The crisis has long-standing roots; the phrase was coined in the early 2010s[3] as part of a growing awareness of the problem. The replication crisis represents an important body of research in the field of metascience.[4]

Because the reproducibility of experiments is an essential part of the scientific method,[5] the inability to replicate the studies of others has potentially grave consequences for many fields of science in which significant theories are grounded on unreproducible experimental work.

This affects soft sciences but not hard sciences. Some studies are pretty good, and we do need statistical studies. Just because not everything can be repeated doesn't mean that its not needed. It just means its not hard science. Its still research when properly conducted by dedicated people.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The Ohio House passed a law that says that students cannot be counted wrong, even in a science class, if their answers are in line with their religion:

Ohio House passes bill allowing student answers to be scientifically wrong due to religion

In other words, the suggestion is that science teachers are not in the business of teaching science, but in catering to religious dogma.

Why anyone would consider this to be appropriate is beyond me.

If I was a science teacher I'd either consider legal action or quit.

Worth noting there is nuance in the bill. But it is needless, pandering and introduces confusion imho.

Does Ohio Bill Let Students Give Wrong Answers Based on Religion?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If I was a science teacher I'd either consider legal action or quit.

Worth noting there is nuance in the bill. But it is needless, pandering and introduces confusion imho.

Does Ohio Bill Let Students Give Wrong Answers Based on Religion?

I see a huge possibility of abuse by both teachers and students. Some teachers do not really want to teach evolution. Not all but there are some that may do a poor job on purpose. They could interpret this law as giving them permission to pass those that lack the course knowledge, but right a creationist answer instead. And a student that misunderstands this law could start a lawsuit over a bad grade, even though he would be likely to lose. It would cost the school quite a bit of money to defend such an action. It is a bad law all around.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Not even going to bother replying to your "fluid gender" tirade, as it has no bearing, and I don't care about the issue one iota. If someone wants to pretend they are a unicorn with a 10 ft. phallus, I don't care, as long as they aren't trying to make me believe it based on insufficient evidence (like the fact that they don't look like a unicorn, and don't have a 10 ft. penis), nor are they trying to make me believe that I am a unicorn as well. Don't care. They can believe what they want, as long as it doesn't affect me.

You wish a science that says that they have NO IDEA what 95% of the universe is made of to be held as sacrosanct?

And do we HAVE TO know, in your estimation? Do we? What happens if we don't know? Can you answer this truthfully, please?

You wish to teach physics that can not agree if there is one universe or an infinite number of universes yet a supernatural perspective is not allowed?

On this point - we don't know until we know. Making things up that don't match up with the evidence and for which no actual investigation of anything REAL has been done doesn't help. Postulating things that do match up with certain aspects of real evidence however HAS proven to be useful in the past, and so I would expect it to be used going forward into the future. No one has to literally "believe" these things (like multiverse, or even one universe, etc.) AND (the biggest point here in favor of those kinds of hypotheses and HEAVILY AGAINST supernatural hypotheses) NO ONE IS GOING TO TRY TO MAKE YOU CHANGE YOUR LIFE OVER A MULTIVERSE HYPOTHESIS. Not so with many religiously-motivated supernatural hypotheses, is it? Many theists are actively trying to get people to change their minds, and change their lives, aren't they? It's evil.

To teach a cosmology that has NO basis in fact but is ALL conjucture often opposed by a small but credibible number of disentures is also a problem.

The pieces of cosmological science that accurately predict actions and interactions of the cosmological players involved (that is, planets, stars, galaxies, black holes, etc.) are what are important. Everything else that doesn't accurately model or predict anything is simply not very important, or is being worked on to elevate it to important/cogent/relevant. It may be interesting, may be fanciful and make for great science fiction, but until it accurately models or predicts something and becomes knowledge we can USE, then what is it? Not useful, that much is pretty self-evident.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Assignment grades and scores shall be calculated using ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance,including any legitimate pedagogical concerns, and shall not penalize or reward a student based on the religious content of a student's work.

This sounds self-contradictory. How is it possible to adhere to ordinary academic standards, which do not allow for the injection of faith-based beliefs, and at the same time that a student cannot be penalized for giving a religious answer in a public, secular school?

As others have noted, this infusion of religious thought into an academic setting is simply degrading the education process and introducing confusion and the loss of clarity. The West has come so far secularizing government and public education. Removing religion from these arenas made them better. This is a step back.

Also, why are we burdening our teachers with their students religious beliefs anyway? Your academic teacher doesn't care what you believe, just how much of the curriculum one has understood and can reproduce in a test or discussion. This is very different from your Sunday school teacher, who only cares what you believe.

it means that a student may say "The answer is that according to the texbook and generally accepted research dinosaurs lived in this period, even though I personally don't believe it."

As the teacher of the student, I would tell him or her that you weren't asked what you personally believed, which is not a part of the curriculum of this class. I would tell that student that people in an evolution class, for example, who learned an average amount of the science would get a C whatever their religious beliefs, those learning most of the material an A, and somebody who gave a purely religious answer with none of the science an F - and not because of what he wrote, but because of what he didn't write.

On the other hand, IMO, I foresee a potential problem arising if and when a student submits classroom work-product that has 100% religious content and no appropriate scientific content, and then whines that they spent so much time putting the religious-based product together that they didn't have time to get around to the appropriate scientific-based product.

That's an F. The test is measuring how much of the course content was mastered by the student and nothing else. The student you described could have written that religious answer before the class started at the beginning of the semester. Several moths of instruction later, he gives the same answer, one that offers no evidence that that student came to class, read, or learned anything at all. That's pretty much the definition of failing a class.

Perhaps a bigger question regarding this bill is......what exactly is the intent? Students are already free to express their religious beliefs in school, so what exactly is the point of the bill? Seems to me like it might be trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

My guess is it's Republican politicians pandering to a religious constituency without regard for the damage that this kind of meddling can do.

Imagine people want children to go to school and learn foolishness; answer the questions according to the script, even if they don't believe the answers are correct, just to say, they did a science.

Nobody cares if somebody "does" a science class. They care if the science was learned. In a science class, it is the religious mythology that is the foolishness, which is already offered in Sunday schools.

Here's how you identify good ideas and distinguish them from foolishness: as @tas8831 noted, if an idea can be used to accurately anticipate outcomes, it is a keeper. If an idea can do that, we consider it knowledge and add it to our collection of ideas that work.

Evolutionary theory works. It unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture.

By contrast, its only alternative, creationism, is a sterile idea that can do none of those things. Even if it were true, it remains a useless idea. Feel free to collect useless ideas and reject useful ones based on faith rather than evidence, but that's pretty much my definition of foolishness right there.

So, one cannot become a scientist, unless they accept science dogma

They won't get a degree in science unless they master the scientific material, whether they accept it or not. They probably won't get a job as a scientist or science teacher without adequate credentials. Even with those credentials, if they want to insert an religious agenda into their work, they will find employment and funding hard to come by. I think that the Discovery Institute might still be hiring, but you'll probably still need an advanced degree from an accredited university to get one of those jobs, and that means learning material whether you believe it or not.

Gee. I didn't know my motor car ran because of a theory. LOL.

Really? You are unaware of thermodynamics and the science of engines? Here's your chance to correct that a little:

Carnot cycle and Carnot engine

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

To teach a cosmology that has NO basis in fact but is ALL conjucture often opposed by a small but credibible number of disentures is also a problem.

The Big Bang theory of cosmic expansion and evolution is confirmed in the main. It is correct, What you just wrote is incorrect, and is easily disproven by learning the science. Instead, you chose faith and went off the rails.

Here's a cosmology that has no basis in fact and is all (now disconfirmed) conjecture

The replication crisis (or replicability crisis or reproducibility crisis) is, as of 2019, an ongoing methodological crisis in which it has been found that many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to replicate or reproduce. The replication crisis affects the social and life sciences most severely.[1][2] The crisis has long-standing roots; the phrase was coined in the early 2010s[3] as part of a growing awareness of the problem. The replication crisis represents an important body of research in the field of metascience.[4] Because the reproducibility of experiments is an essential part of the scientific method,[5] the inability to replicate the studies of others has potentially grave consequences for many fields of science in which significant theories are grounded on unreproducible experimental work.

Except that there are no crises in science, just some unsolved problems.

As I indicated, we don't judge the merit of an idea by the reproducibility of experiments. If an experiment is performed and repeated yielding widely divergent results, we should come to divergent tentative conclusions about how reality is. The idea that works best is the one we use. This might be a good time to introduce a few useful concepts that eliminate much of the semantic quibbling about truth and proof :

• Empirical adequacy - A theory is empirically adequate, roughly, if all of what it says about observable aspects of the world (past, present, and future) can be confirmed

• Fallibilism - the principle that propositions concerning empirical knowledge can be accepted even though they cannot be proved with certainty.

• Correspondence definition of truth - a statement is true to the extent that it conforms to / corresponds with / accurately reflects (objective) reality.

• Instrumentalism - belief that statements or theories may be used as tools for useful prediction without reference to their possible truth or falsity. Peirce and other pragmatists defended an instrumentalist account of modern science.

Consider creationism in the light of that. It fails, because it is useless.

The basic biological sciences are accepted it is the STORY told to explain them that people of faith have a problem with.

In my experience, those that reject the narrative of any scientific theory don't know the scientific facts from which the theory derives. The problem is thinking by faith. Of course you won't accept the scientific theory if you choose to believe an alternative narrative by faith, nor will you have any incentive to become proficient in the sciences. They simply become irrelevant and remove the incentive to study them, just as scripture is irrelevant to me. We have chosen different epistemologies, and not surprisingly, have very different ideas about how the world is and works.

And what are we really talking about here.... it is creation and evolution for the most part and these have very little effect on the REAL sciences or on anything foundational.

Some people care that their beliefs be correct even if they don't directly apply them themselves. I don't use evolutionary theory, but I still want to know it because it is correct by the bullet point standards I have suggested above.

 

[Polymath257]

The replication crisis often makes the scientific claims no more valid than the religious. Faith in the science produced by a broken and fractured academy is misplaced.

I would prefer that biology teachs that Male and female are the TWO sexes rather than that gender it is an oppressive construction of the paitriarchy and that sex is not a real thing. I think an appeal to the common historical understanding of sex and gender as outlined by the bible, showing 5000 years of human consensus on the sublect to be a valid argument.

Except that isn't what we actually see in the real world. The *science* shows there are many difficulties with the strict male/female split. For example, there are the androgen insensitive XY individuals that look like females, and often don't find out they are XY until puberty.

You wish a science that says that they have NO IDEA what 95% of the universe is made of to be held as sacrosanct?

Who said anything about 'sacrosanct'? In fact, the whole point of the scientific outlook is to NOT hold things sacrosanct. Question *each and every* conclusion made, and make sure the evidence supports your conclusions.

You wish to teach physics that can not agree if there is one universe or an infinite number of universes yet a supernatural perspective is not allowed?

In a physics class? yes. There is a HUGE difference between "we don't know" and admitting we are speculating (which is what is happening in your situation) and 'taking things on faith', which is what religions tend to promote.

So, yes, we should most definitely teach what we have discovered in physics. We most definitely should teach those things we know (expanding universe, quantum indeterminacy, etc) and be *clear* about what is and what is not speculation.

To teach a cosmology that has NO basis in fact but is ALL conjucture often opposed by a small but credibible number of disentures is also a problem.
.........................

And what aspects of cosmology do you think have no basis at all? That the universe is expanding? That it was once much hotter and denser than today? That at one time nuclear reactions formed the light elements? That the current expansion phase is about 13.7 billion years old?

Each and every one of those *conclusions* is based on solid evidence collected over decades and evaluated by many researchers with different perspectives.

if you want to debate cosmology, start a thread. I will be happy to engage.

 

[Polymath257]

They are being asked what they believe. Either that or they are being required to lie about what they think.

In a math class, they are asked to do math and give answers based on math. In a science class, they are asked to give answers based on science.

In Ohio its not an F, which is the point.

And it should be. That is the point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Big Bang theory of cosmic expansion and evolution is confirmed in the main. It is correct, What you just wrote is incorrect, and is easily disproven by learning the science. Instead, you chose faith and went off the rails.

Here's a cosmology that has no basis in fact and is all (now disconfirmed) conjecture

What's wrong with that? It looks rather accurate to me? Oh wait, now I see it. It does not depict the entrances to the hollow Earth at the poles. (pole?)

 

[Ponder This]

Nor may a teacher **penalize**-- i.e. cannot give a very deserved F if the religious victim replies to the test question, "Jesus is the answer". (assuming the question was not, in fact, "What mythical character has no physical, written or other evidence during his alleged life time"...)

So on a test about Evolution? The poor misguided student can reply, "god, he did it" to all the questions, and he cannot be graded "F" as would be proper.

Is it your assertion that evolution is not part of "ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance including legitimate pedagogical concerns"? Because I was under the impression that it was.

I realize it also says grades and scores will be "calculated using ordinary standards", but that's a testament to just how poorly this bill is written.

Can you elaborate on why this is poorly written?

Perhaps a bigger question regarding this bill is......what exactly is the intent? Students are already free to express their religious beliefs in school, so what exactly is the point of the bill? Seems to me like it might be trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

I think those are excellent questions and I would like to know the answers to those questions myself. I can only speculate, but there have been challenges to religious freedoms in schools recently. Cases where students have been unable to practice their religion freely and cases where students were required to do specific religious activities against their will. So maybe there is a problem even though what is said should pretty much go without saying.

That's how it reads to me. It creates some complications for grading and assessment, certainly. What you'd probably want to do as an instructor is create a threshold for minimum points needed to pass the class or get a certain grade (if you don't already). Answers to questions that don't align with the ordinary academic standards for a history course, philosophy course, chemistry course, or whatever would be nulled out but if the student failed to accrue enough points they would still fail because... well, they should. They didn't learn the content. Basically, there's ways to comply with the bill and still ensure academic standards are kept. The issue will come up so rarely it isn't worth making a big fuss over on the whole.

Wait... you are saying that it does create some complications for grading and assessment? What would be an example of such a complication? Because we've ruled out the supposed evolution example. Evolution is part of ordinary academic standards, is it not?

The bill specifies "written assignments" such as homework and says that a student cannot be penalized "based on the religious content of their work". So theoretically, if a student answers the question "What is the age of the earth" with "The Word of God teaches that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old", and the teacher marks the answer wrong (thereby penalizing the student), the teacher could be in violation of the law (if this becomes law as is).

A student cannot be penalized or rewarded for religious content and the answer "The Word of God teaches that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old" does not conform to ordinary academic standards for substance and relevance when teaching science. So it's clear that the student will, in fact, be wrong and that the science teacher may mark it thus (in fact, is probably compelled by this law to mark it wrong, because not marking it wrong would be rewarding a student based on religious content). If a student is doing some sort of essay in another class where science isn't the standard but some other academic standard is being met, then it might be acceptable.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

They are being asked what they believe. Either that or they are being required to lie about what they think.

This is a failure of perspective on your part. While I could agree that, from a 1,000-mile-up perspective, "what we think" about just about anything is always sort of "tentative" - that is, absolute certainty about pretty much anything is unachievable, which does sort of put things in this weird "subjectivity limbo."

However, once you have entered an environment like a classroom and the objective is laid out for you (to learn and be able to reproduce the topics and applicable knowledge being passed on to you) then you have entered an OBJECTIVE space, within which you have an objective goal - no longer subjective. When the rules are known, you can't just flub and try to beg off when you bend the rules. In order to get a high grade, the rules are "get it right", where "right" is the applicable curriculum that the teacher taught you. This is basically how it has to work. Otherwise every class becomes more like kindergarten "art class" - and everyone just gets a "participation" grade. Who do you feel that sort of education actually helps?

 

[Ponder This]

The problem is more apparent from the teacher's perspective. It will be a problem if a parent disputes the way a teacher grades their child's work.

Dealing with parents is part of being a teacher.

Not to mention it's a STEM school, STEM isn't religion. Religion is not STEM.

"STEM is a curriculum based on the idea of educating students in four specific disciplines — science, technology, engineering and mathematics"

( source )

Can you elaborate on the problem here? If Religion is not STEM, then what is the dispute between teachers and parents that you anticipate occurring?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is it your assertion that evolution is not part of "ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance including legitimate pedagogical concerns"? Because I was under the impression that it was.

Supposed to be and actually being taught are two different animals. There are probably still many schools or teachers that do not teach the subject, as in this article:

I Was Never Taught Where Humans Came From

One must not listen too closely to the complaints about creationists that grossly overstate the amount of "evolution" being taught in schools since they call any of the sciences that disagree with their particular Bible myths "evolution", and one must admit that most of science does disagree with the Bible.

 

[Ponder This]

Supposed to be and actually being taught are two different animals. There are probably still many schools or teachers that do not teach the subject, as in this article:

I Was Never Taught Where Humans Came From

One must not listen too closely to the complaints about creationists that grossly overstate the amount of "evolution" being taught in schools since they call any of the sciences that disagree with their particular Bible myths "evolution", and one must admit that most of science does disagree with the Bible.

So... if I understand what you are saying correctly... in the absence of this law, there exist teachers and students that do not adhere to ordinary academic standards or respect religious freedoms and that, at any rate, adherence to academic standards is not enforceable nor are religious freedom enforceable.

So... does that mean there should be no laws passed regarding adherence to academic standards or regarding religious freedoms? Because it seems to me that the law is important despite the fact that there are people who would break it.

 

[Ponder This]

And I don't find it at ALL unlikely that some student (or parents, or lawyers) will argue that the 'academic standards' of their favorite home-school textbook are the ones to be used. The student would, supposedly, find their religious notions to be 'of substance and relevance'.

How would you word the law better? Or do you think there should be no laws requiring teachers and student to adhere to academic standards or laws addressing the issue of student religious freedom?

 

[Revoltingest]

Why anyone would consider this to be appropriate is beyond me.

Think of it.....
I'd get 100% on every science test because my religion says that whatever I believe, it is right.
But not only that, I'm 100% correct about all religions too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So... if I understand what you are saying correctly... in the absence of this law, there exist teachers and students that do not adhere to ordinary academic standards or respect religious freedoms and that, at any rate, adherence to academic standards is not enforceable nor are religious freedom enforceable.

So... does that mean there should be no laws passed regarding adherence to academic standards or regarding religious freedoms? Because it seems to me that the law is important despite the fact that there are people who would break it.

My point was that in the absence of this law there are already abuses. This law will only make it worse.

 

[Brickjectivity]

In a math class, they are asked to do math and give answers based on math. In a science class, they are asked to give answers based on science.



And it should be. That is the point.

Which is true, and I think the law does not prevent that.