There's a Wilkins/Myers conversation up on Bloggingheads. The quality of the recording is horrible, and I have to apologize — we did a little experimentation and deviated from the usual bloggingheads recording proocol, and it's clear now that we shouldn't have done that. I recommend not watching it, just listen, if you must.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
There's a lot of debate online about whether people can really tell the difference between the various audio formats -- AAC, MP3, you name it. Does it really make a difference?
Recently I saw a blog post suggesting that the methodology for many so-called studies on the phenomenon was flawed. If you…
Show mercy to Scooter Libby but not an illegal immigrant. Sue grandmothers and single parents of ten years olds but let rich twenty somethings admit piracy to a national newspaper with no one making a peep. Justice must have her blindfold off.
But I shouldn't have said no one has made a peep. We…
Ann Coulter is a horrible, ignorant person who once wrote a whole book accusing liberals of being Godless, as if that were an insult, and advancing arguments against evolution that made the standard noisy creationist look like a veritable scholar. I looked at her arguments, and I made a public…
This should enliven your morning: Abigail Smith and I did a Bloggingheads diavlog the other day, and now you can watch us chatter away. I know you've all been wondering what Abbie looks like in person. (One odd thing about recording these, though: we are conversing over the phone, but we don't…
Not that the audio would be any better ...
°_^J.
WOOT! With my 50Mb/s connection here at the university, I can load about 7 seconds at a time, with 30 second pauses, thank you over the top security!
It can't be as dire as the Eurovision song contest - hardly any of the entrants could actually sing in tune (and the recording quality was horrible in allowing the singers to be heard at all). They did have a pirate-themed song in there somewhere - but that was bad too.
And spelling.
Sorry! I usually don't invoke Inglish Gemmar Nasi Mood, but sometimes...
Calculus > Evolution for high school?
I don't think I ever heard you say that before PZ. Of course I agree that Calculus (as well as a good understanding of statistics) is the more primary and useful tool for students of the sciences, but I guess I would have never expected you to say that.
What a shame the quality of the presentation was so poor. I enjoyed the exchange nonetheless. My greatest disappointment was that it was so brief.
Apropos of your and Wilkins' remarks about education, this from na 18 year-old on En Tequila Es Verdad:
Calculus > Evolution for high school
meh, calculus can wait until freshman college (you won't need it until upper level courses, like Physical Chemistry)
not so at least a basic understanding of evolution. even lower level college biology courses expect some knowledge of evolutionary theory.
...I do agree with The Science Pundit's comments on statistics, though.
I'd rank an introductory course in probability and statistics much higher than calculus on the science scale.
or even just on the "general education" scale.
Unfortunately, I can't recall seeing many secondary programs with probability/statistics on the agenda.
I think it might be offered as a AP series for some high schools, but it doesn't seem to be stressed much, and it really should.
@#9 Ichthyic --
Absolutely. With the way various groups tend to try to use statistics to support their own agenda, it's very important that people be able to understand the basic principles behind collecting & interpreting statistical data. It's really rather appalling how even the supposedly more educated members of the media & the general public let people get away with really rather obvious fallacies if they have numbers in front of them...
Probability, statistics and a good appreciation of human misperception of low probability - high consequence risk situations. Things I'd like to see taught to every high school and undergrad student. Everyone needs a practical understanding of these subjects in modern society.
..sorry folks, but most of serious science (don't know about biology though) and engineering requires a very solid maths foundation, including calculus and worse, and all the rest is just anecdotes. Because for mere mortals maths is quite hard, the best time to learn it is when the brain's at it's most receptive, i.e. in the teens.
I don't remember ever being taught evolution formally. I think at school it was just mentioned in passing from time-to-time and treated as a given. There are just a few basic precepts to evolution which are easily absorbed, and were it not for voodoo practitioners trying to brainwash kids, I'm not convinced that much formal schooling in it is justified.
Well I though it was a brilliant conversation, just too brief.
You know, regarding how to go about both battling the anti-science brigades *and* clarifying public perception of what science is all about and what it has to currently say, I can't help thinking that some kind of Incident Command System would help a lot.
I know it sounds crazy. But a division of responsibilities plus clear communications within the response group could help even something like this.
An approach like that would allow people to completely focus on the particular things they do best while the whole group is attacking things from all sides.
I mean, really, it *is* an emergency as far as I'm concerned, so why not?
Ok, yeah, I know it's crazy. Just thought I'd share a thought.
On evilution, calculus and statistics:
in engineering, I have to use calculus for everything, I also need a small amount of stats, and (understandably) no evolution. All three of these are covered in advanced high school classes that huge numbers of people don't take(stats is in grade 12 math, calc in an extra class after grade 12 math and evolution in grade 12 Bio).
As much as I need the calc, I had to relearn it all in university anyway (6 math courses in my first two years, yeah). Society in general would see a lot more benifit in knowing some basic stats and having a vague understanding of evolution, at least more than knowing what a definite integral is. It would've been much better for me(or more importantly, my poorly educated peers, i already knew the basics) to have learned a little about evolution in science 10, rather than all the funny named parts of the cell that I've long since forgotten.
There are just a few basic precepts to evolution which are easily absorbed, and were it not for voodoo practitioners trying to brainwash kids, I'm not convinced that much formal schooling in it is justified.
...says the engineer that claims not to have been educated in it.
moron.
Your right that the quality was very poor. But as I will never miss my Science Saturday, and was delighted that it would be PZ, I endured. Only other criticism is that there was a little too much "yea I agree" going on. But that too I was ok with.
To #11 Johhnie I agree. This would help people to understand real risk and maybe be more fiscally responsible.
Also learn to be more dicerning when they here about political polls etc.
Math is critical to opening your mind IMHO. But biology? Well it took Mrs. Rice in my freshman year of High School for me to start loving the other sciences. Why? because she was cool and a very trendy dresser. I thought, wow if you can be cool and love science, I am all over that.
Speaking as a statistician, my profession needs to do a better job of teaching the basics of inference, and less time scaring students with the math. Calculus is a prerequisite for statistical theory, but the methods can still be taught and understood at a more basic level.
Back when I first heard about Intelligent Design, I sat down and thought hard about how one might go about testing such an idea. I quit a few minutes later when I determined there isn't even a hypothesis to test. Even a basic understanding of how statistics are used as a tool of science is enough to refute ID as a legitimate area of research.
Even a basic understanding of how statistics are used as a tool of science is enough to refute ID as a legitimate area of research.
indeed, and I'm sure that a better public understanding of probability alone would have stopped Dembski's ludicrous notions in their tracks.
*sigh*