Newly Ancient

One of the worst things about the Bush years was the attitude towards science. The Administration maintained the view that science was, at best, irrelevant and, at worst, false and intolerable. Legitimate research was often disparaged and completely ignored, with even the most imperative issues being decided on political, rather than intellectual, reasons. In short, science took a back seat to politics.

Unfortunately, this attitude towards science is certainly not exclusive to the GOP. Governments and parties, from the Roman empire up through the Illinois Senate, readily dismiss science. They fund the research and use the results when it makes their point, but completely ignore any contradiction with their philosophies. Science has become another tool for argumentation and communication, rather than a tool for investigation and exploration.

One of the most bizarre resolutions I have seen recently is one drafted by the Illinois Senate. This resolution essentially chooses to completely ignore the decision of the IAU and maintains that Pluto is still a planet:

RESOLVED, BY THE SENATE OF THE NINETY-SIXTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, that as Pluto passes overhead through Illinois’ night skies, that it be reestablished with full planetary status, and that March 13, 2009 be declared “Pluto Day” in the State of Illinois in honor of the date its discovery was announced in 1930.

Since when does the Senate have veto authority over all decisions made anywhere? I can certainly understand the reasons to do so. The successes of any state citizen should be honored, and the fact that Pluto is no longer a planet makes the contribution of Clyde Tombaugh no less important. But that doesn’t give politicians the right to override the decision of a legitimate scientific body. Additionally, there is no reason Pluto needs to be reclassified as a planet. March 13 could be “Pluto Day” whether Pluto is a planet or not.

What next? Senatorial edicts that red is now green? We must respect science, even when we don’t like that science.

(Via aschmitz)

In any reasonable system, computer applications would not be a class. When schools think about digital literacy, far too many focus on the simple: teaching tools. Teaching tools is easy: it’s easy to add “digital literacy” to graduation requirements and plop kids down in mandatory technology classes. Unfortunately, this is exactly the wrong approach. In doing so, you teach students to use the tools, but not how to use the tools. A tool, and knowledge of it, is only as useful as how its applied. Truly teaching digital literacy requires integrating the tools directly into the curriculum of other disciplines, which is definitely difficult.

The problem is that schools are trapped in the mindset which is used to teach other tools. Other tools are virtually indistinguishable from their content. When you learn to read (particularly at advanced levels), you also learn to read. In the process of learning the tool, you learn the content, and vice versa. Schools have attempted to do this with technology, to poor results. When you teach technology as its taught in most schools, you only teach the tool, without the application.

Even worse is when IT administrators try to add rigor to the technology education in exactly the wrong way. Apparently, one technology director feels that students should use the most difficult software, just because it is difficult.

However, even iLife has its drawbacks in an educational setting. It simply hands so much to the students that they struggle with software (whether Windows, Linux, or even pro-level software on the Mac) that isn’t so brilliantly plug and play. Yes, iLife rocks in many ways, but the level of spoonfeeding it encourages actually makes me think twice about using it widely, especially at the high school level.

This argument essentially comes down to iLife being too good. Yes, you read that correctly: the software is bad because it’s too good. Apparently, we should make students’ lives miserable, because they’re going to be miserable when they grow up.

The fact is that 99% of students are never going to need to go beyond basic multimedia productions. The highly usable tools of iLife are more than satisfactory for everything but professional tasks. Beyond that, the future programmers and film editors probably have the initiative to seek out and learn the advanced software themselves.

This argument reminds me of the teachers who used to (and still do) require students to never use calculators. There argument for this usually amounts to the idea that students won’t have calculators in the “real world.” Of course, in the real world calculators are readily available: every computer and cell phone has one. When students go out into the world, they will be able to make decisions with their sotware. In fact, that’s probably a far better thing to teach: how to chose good software. Clearly this IT admin could use a lesson or two himself.

The bottom line is that schools should never teach students to accept the subpar. This is the kind of thinking which puts IT administrators and educators at odds and puts technology above actual learning. Technology, especially bad technology, should never be taught for technology’s sake.

(Via Daring Fireball)