Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 91 to 94 of 94

Thread: To Sci-Fi Writers...

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    12,732
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    And it influences the public perceptions about evolution. Which both screw up the actual knowledge, and makes it easier for deniers to argue against a popular but wrong strawman.
    I don"t know if that show actually says anything at all about evolution. I'm guessing here, but I think it was supposed to be a morality tale but they accidentally edited out the ending. It was phrased in terms of evolution as analogy to growth and having responsibility for one's outcomes. The answer was supposed to be "grow into what for what?" but they left that part out and just ended with a mind boggling mess of imagery and squick. The premise of the episode was they developed the ability to do something that had been thought to be impossible. That came at a cost. Unfortunately, instead of being a lesson about self-limitation or maybe accepting the cost was too high, it just went off the rails.

    As near as I can tell, evolution is a poor analogy to anything having to do with picking and choosing outcomes. You pretty much have a disaster on your hands if you think that evolution has a hand in your personal agency. It just doesn't work that way and usually something similar karma rears it's head. To paraphrase the TV show Big Bang Theory, "karma is positively newtonian". That isn't how karma is supposed to work, either. But it kind of seems like it does. At least, from the sidelines.
    Last edited by Solfe; 2021-Jul-17 at 07:27 AM.
    Solfe

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,923
    Quote Originally Posted by Solfe View Post
    I don"t know if that show actually says anything at all about evolution. I'm guessing here, but I think it was supposed to be a morality tale but they accidentally edited out the ending.
    But to the general audience, popular TV and media influence their thinking much more than poorly remembered high school lessons. So it does in fact have public repercussions what Star Trek or any other big-name entertainment (Heroes, X-Men, etc) say about evolution. Repeat something enough times to enough people and most of them start to think that's really how it works.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    12,732
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    But to the general audience, popular TV and media influence their thinking much more than poorly remembered high school lessons. So it does in fact have public repercussions what Star Trek or any other big-name entertainment (Heroes, X-Men, etc) say about evolution. Repeat something enough times to enough people and most of them start to think that's really how it works.
    One of things that distressed me as a teacher was that learning does require repetition, but not exact repetition. For example, I was part of the "lost generation", the time period between 1985 and 1991 where social studies curriculums were thrown out. Social Studies is not history, it's how man discovers and uses resources, knowledge, methods and technology to make a culture or society. In a time period where the curriculum non-existent, I took Canadian history twice, South East Asian history twice, then Participation in Government and economics. I can't say that I have any great knowledge about Canada or Vietnam.

    What does stands out to me about my time is high school, is I remember that evolution was largely divorced from Science. Instead, I learned about in it Math, Biology and English class. Now I just said that it was "divorced from Science" and then immediately mentioned Biology. We actually had to write about Gregor Mendel and statistics for a biology class. The same approach was used in a math class where we had to stop and write a paper about finches and Darwin as it relates to math. Inherit the Wind showed up in English class twice and looped into the age of discovery in respect to the scientific endeavor and the birth of the social sciences.

    So in a curriculum where evolution was not taught, it came up an awful lot. And repetition was a component, but not the repetition of a singular idea until I knew something. This is good teaching where you get a different approach to a single topic. It's far less boring than repetition.

    I'm currently in a crisis over it now, because I could return to teaching but really don't want to for reasons like this.
    Solfe

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    10,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Solfe View Post
    One of things that distressed me as a teacher was that learning does require repetition, but not exact repetition. For example, I was part of the "lost generation", the time period between 1985 and 1991 where social studies curriculums were thrown out. Social Studies is not history, it's how man discovers and uses resources, knowledge, methods and technology to make a culture or society. In a time period where the curriculum non-existent, I took Canadian history twice, South East Asian history twice, then Participation in Government and economics. I can't say that I have any great knowledge about Canada or Vietnam.

    What does stands out to me about my time is high school, is I remember that evolution was largely divorced from Science. Instead, I learned about in it Math, Biology and English class. Now I just said that it was "divorced from Science" and then immediately mentioned Biology. We actually had to write about Gregor Mendel and statistics for a biology class. The same approach was used in a math class where we had to stop and write a paper about finches and Darwin as it relates to math. Inherit the Wind showed up in English class twice and looped into the age of discovery in respect to the scientific endeavor and the birth of the social sciences.

    So in a curriculum where evolution was not taught, it came up an awful lot. And repetition was a component, but not the repetition of a singular idea until I knew something. This is good teaching where you get a different approach to a single topic. It's far less boring than repetition.

    I'm currently in a crisis over it now, because I could return to teaching but really don't want to for reasons like this.
    I have very limited experience as a teacher, I lectured at a design university course for a while. There was a curriculum and an exam. I preferred my students to take written notes. I believe that reinforces a pathway just as powerfully as repetition. It is difficult to know the level of understanding in a student without a test, unpopular as those are, but unless you can start with that and build, a lot goes over their heads. And those were motivated students! I admire teachers, if you want to do it, …respect!
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

Similar Threads

  1. I'm Looking for More Writers
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2005-Sep-07, 04:04 PM
  2. Discussion: I'm Looking for More Writers
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2005-May-26, 08:06 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •