I find that the hierarchy of evidence combined with the ability to critique research is the foundation upon which sits pretty much all of my opinions. It’s a shame kids aren’t taught this from a young age; it would make manipulating them as adults so much harder.
Once you realise the strength of the peer review process, you realise that most peoples opinions dont actually matter: we have strong research on that.
Once you realise the strength of the peer review process, you realise that most peoples opinions dont actually matter: we have strong research on that.
We also have research on people ignoring peer reviewed data in favour of random facts from random sources.
kids aren’t taught that at a young age because they can’t grasp it at a young age.
and frankly, most adults can’t either. it’s too abstract for them.
our ability to understand abstract concepts like scientific method begin at age 12. that’s why you start doing science experiments in class in junior high.
But there’s a third option. There’s a difference between complete absence of this topic in the curriculum, and simplified versions of it that increase in difficulty with capability. Mirroring other stages of educational development.
At the moment there’s a complete absence. At least in any country I’m aware of. Until late high school level which is way too late.
Young kds understand hierarchies. Social hierarchies start to form on the first day of kindergarten.
Teaching an 8 year old that science research sits at the top of a pyramid and newspapers and TV sitd at the bottom, would be easy to grasp. There’s nothing stopping us removing the detail and teaching a simplified structure that can then be built upon in subsequent years.
Edit: in regards to your edit, I was taught a simplified scientific method from age 8, not 12.
I mean, there’s a large body of statistical data that says most people do not behave rationally unless absolutely forced to. Children most definitely do not behave rationally unless deeply emotionally engaged. The idea of humans as “rational actors” has about as much evidentiary support as Luminiferous Aether and balancing humours.
Much of education is based on following a rational thought through to its conclusion regardless of age.
I’m confused as to why the idea of teaching a logical subject is up for debate. Kids are taught math and science early and through logical foundations.
Education is built on logic! Yes, by all means wrap that boring unemotional logic up in a shiny emotional wrapper. That makes sense. That’s the sign of a great teacher or a great curriculum or materials. But in that is the difference of delivery versus content.
From Ancient Greece to modern times - logic is something that still persists in education because the universe we live in is a logical rules based one. It might be boring, and not very engaging to some, not emotive enough, but it is neccessary.
In the UK kids are taught a basic version of the scientific method between the age of 5-7 years old according to the UK goverenment website. Should they scrap that because it’s not naturally emotive?
Respectfully, your point seems to be a moot one. Criticising delivery, when I was talking about the subject matter and delivery is as much a skill of those delivering as anything else.
I find that the hierarchy of evidence combined with the ability to critique research is the foundation upon which sits pretty much all of my opinions. It’s a shame kids aren’t taught this from a young age; it would make manipulating them as adults so much harder.
Once you realise the strength of the peer review process, you realise that most peoples opinions dont actually matter: we have strong research on that.
We also have research on people ignoring peer reviewed data in favour of random facts from random sources.
Says who?
Any study with a placebo or nocebo element.
Do we have data on people who understand the significance of peer reviewed research ignoring that research despite the understanding?
kids aren’t taught that at a young age because they can’t grasp it at a young age.
and frankly, most adults can’t either. it’s too abstract for them.
our ability to understand abstract concepts like scientific method begin at age 12. that’s why you start doing science experiments in class in junior high.
But there’s a third option. There’s a difference between complete absence of this topic in the curriculum, and simplified versions of it that increase in difficulty with capability. Mirroring other stages of educational development.
At the moment there’s a complete absence. At least in any country I’m aware of. Until late high school level which is way too late.
Young kds understand hierarchies. Social hierarchies start to form on the first day of kindergarten.
Teaching an 8 year old that science research sits at the top of a pyramid and newspapers and TV sitd at the bottom, would be easy to grasp. There’s nothing stopping us removing the detail and teaching a simplified structure that can then be built upon in subsequent years.
Edit: in regards to your edit, I was taught a simplified scientific method from age 8, not 12.
you have never been around children, have you?
If kid is capable of understanding basic scientific method at 8 years old, they can understand the basic structure of a hierarchy.
“X is more important than Y”
“Why sir”
“Because X uses the scientific method like we discussed in class last week and Y does not”
“What’s the scientific method again sir”
repeats for retention
that’s not how kids work. nor do most people.
Okay. I don’t agree with you, but that’s fine. We can disagree.
I mean, there’s a large body of statistical data that says most people do not behave rationally unless absolutely forced to. Children most definitely do not behave rationally unless deeply emotionally engaged. The idea of humans as “rational actors” has about as much evidentiary support as Luminiferous Aether and balancing humours.
Much of education is based on following a rational thought through to its conclusion regardless of age.
I’m confused as to why the idea of teaching a logical subject is up for debate. Kids are taught math and science early and through logical foundations.
Education is built on logic! Yes, by all means wrap that boring unemotional logic up in a shiny emotional wrapper. That makes sense. That’s the sign of a great teacher or a great curriculum or materials. But in that is the difference of delivery versus content.
From Ancient Greece to modern times - logic is something that still persists in education because the universe we live in is a logical rules based one. It might be boring, and not very engaging to some, not emotive enough, but it is neccessary.
In the UK kids are taught a basic version of the scientific method between the age of 5-7 years old according to the UK goverenment website. Should they scrap that because it’s not naturally emotive?
Respectfully, your point seems to be a moot one. Criticising delivery, when I was talking about the subject matter and delivery is as much a skill of those delivering as anything else.