Science Needs A Dose of Independent Thought and Humility

Judith Curry is an independent thinker, a fact that should be readily apparent after the Mann vs. Steyn trial and her wonderful book “Climate Uncertainty and Risk.” She has chosen the road taken by far too few in science, the road to independent thought and humility, especially when it comes to climate science. Recently, she participated in a panel discussion regarding appropriate K-12 science education standards. You can view the discussion here:

Judith’s full remarks can be found here. What I found particularly interesting thought was this part of her presentation:

I’ve been asked to comment on the importance of Franklin Standards for the public understanding of science and scientific debate, particularly with reference to climate science.

A major concern raised by the Franklin Standards document is the politicization of the science curriculum and activism. I agree that this is a huge problem.  However, apparently strong science content education in the high school curriculum hasn’t inoculated many A students from being convinced that humans face extinction from climate change, and that they can change their sex.  

I encountered some of these students in the lawsuit filed by Our Children’s Trust against the State of Montana. Where a number of very bright native American high school students were convinced that human-caused climate change was an existential threat to their future. 

There are several problems here.  Even if schools have a state- or district-adopted curriculum, that doesn’t mean that it’s getting taught.  Further, children are being taught materials at the discretion of the individual teacher that have no official oversight or approval.

The bigger issue is that societally-relevant issues related to health, the environment, and climate change are deeply complex, and fraught with ethical ambiguities.  It’s naïve to think that providing students with fundamental science content will arm them against wrong beliefs. When experts disagree on both the problems and their solutions.

Engaging students with the societal context for science, both current and historical, not only increases their learning potential and motivation for learning science, but it can also support critical thinking about complex issues facing society.

How is this to be accomplished?  We should work to integrate science more broadly across the curriculum. Not just mathematics, but also social studies and English and Language Arts.  Among other things, such integration effectively increases the amount of time in the school day that includes science.   But more importantly, it promotes critical thinking about complex scientific topics and societal issues.   

Instead of endless history courses on wars, why not a course on the History of Science and Discovery?  The Franklin curriculum includes material about famous scientists, which can be motivational.  But there’s opportunity and need for much more, integrating inquiry and discovery with the history and the social context of science. 

As an example, Isaac Asimov’s book, Chronology of science and discovery, beautifully describes how science has shaped the world and how it interfaces with technology.  Bill Bryson’s A short history of everything is another good resource, describing the events, conversations, feuds, competitions and necessities that drove science forward.

Such a course would be motivational for strong students that are potential STEM majors, as well as providing interesting and accessible material to students who find the math and science curriculum to be difficult.  With suitable examples, such a course could provide societal context for the science and discovery, and help inoculate against politicized science and enforced consensus.

The bottom line is to promote independent thought and critical thinking, about pure science, technology and related societal issues.  This is important for motivating students for the pre-professional track as well as for general education to sensibly think about the increasingly complex science related issues that they will encounter.

I agree with every word of this. Independent thought and critical thinking are missing from so much in today’s. The fatal conceit—the idea that intelligence in one thing is intelligence in everything—is present everyone one looks. The COVID fiasco showed us this in spades as scientists operating within a narrow band of competency gladly imposed their equally narrow views in areas where they had zero competency (the economy, childhood education, politics and pretty much anything). Humility was non-existent and independent thought, of course, was punished to a degree unimaginable in retrospect.

The same thing has happened with climate science, which is all too often being done with arrogance and condescension, rather than independent thought and humility. Consideration of other possibilities is verboten and nothing else matters to the perpetrators, in fact. No real science can be done in a vacuum because real people are ultimately affected by the results.

Therefore, students need exposure to history, literature, practical matters and, especially, the English language. Most scientific papers, in fact, are very poorly written with absurdly long paragraphs and an incomprehensible style. Then, they get interpreted by journalistic dunderheads. Imagine how much more useful the science would be with better writing and understanding that comes from broad-based education to complement the science.

#JudithCurry #Education #FranklinStandards #ClimateScience #Science