A paradigm for teaching the processes and practice of modern science

[Trakar]

National Center for Science Education: "Climate science is core to science education"
In the proverbial “nut shell”:

The American Meteorological Society, in a policy statement adopted on May 23, 2013, affirmed the importance of climate science to science education. The AMS criticized attempts to undermine the teaching of climate change "by those seeking to frame it as somehow different from other scientific subjects, often with claims that it is either 'uncertain' or 'controversial.' They advocate the need for a special approach to its teaching, such as added effort to balance perspectives." "With this statement, the AMS seeks to confirm the solid scientific foundation on which climate change science rests, and to emphasize that teaching approaches different from other sciences are not warranted. Uncertainty is a natural component of all scientific endeavor. The existence of uncertainty does not undermine the scientific validity of climate change science; to the contrary, it provides a sound example for broader instruction of the scientific method."

​

This is about as scientifically uncontroversial as it gets.
http://ncse.com/news/2013/05/climate-science-is-core-to-science-education-0014857

 

[Saigon]

Interesting....I do think that where science is disputed, the nature of that dispute and the opposing theories also presented. Students should be encouraged to think, to question and to challenge conventional thinking.

But I do agree that most aspects of our climate are no longer hotly contested anywhere except on this board, so in that sense not all elements of climate denialism perhaps need to be presented.

 

[itfitzme]

By the time science reaches the level of primary school education, there is no rational dispute. Science dispute resides entirely at the level of PhD research. Established yet new science is introduced to the Masters programs, filtering down to undergraduate work within five or ten years. By the time it hits the grade schools, it it well established and that which is presented is that which is certain. It also provides an excelent opporrunuty to introduce web based data research, satistics, and linear regression in Excel. It is an excellent opporrunuty to repeat some of the basic work that climate scientists do, introducing Volstok, Mau Loa, and the grid of worldwide temperature station (there is one near you). It would provide some insight into the complex work done by the IPCC.

 

[Trakar]

Interesting....I do think that where science is disputed, the nature of that dispute and the opposing theories also presented. Students should be encouraged to think, to question and to challenge conventional thinking.

But I do agree that most aspects of our climate are no longer hotly contested anywhere except on this board, so in that sense not all elements of climate denialism perhaps need to be presented.

There seems to be a bit of confusion in how this is stated. I suspect it comes from a popular meme that different fields of science are all clearly distinct and separate from each other with very little crossover. In actuality science and the evidences that science seeks to categorize and explain are greatly interrelated and overlapping. It is exceedingly rare that any single piece of evidence or understanding will ever completely change or refute any large body of scientific understanding, merely because the overlap and integration of science across its many fields and the accumulation of supporting evidences throughout those many fields means that any radical change must not only better explain the supporting evidences directly tied to that understanding to be changed, it must also better explain all of the other integrated science understandings and evidences from other science fields that are based upon that understanding to be changed.

Even when we look at areas where an understanding has changed, as in when Relativity superseded Newtonian understandings, the new understanding did not refute Newtonian understandings it just provided a better explanation of the evidences and showed that Newtonian techniques were more of an approximation of interactions under certain circumstances and perspective conditions. It isn't that questioning shouldn't be done, but rather that without a deep understanding of what is known and how that knowing is supported there is no way to know which aspects and evidences are actually questionable and which areas are well and compellingly supported across many lines and fields of scientific inquiry.

Example legitimate controversy - whether the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is 1.5 degrees C, or 6.5 degrees C makes a big difference in the types of impacts we might see result from climate change.

Whereas, whether or not carbon dioxide acts as a Greenhouse Gas in our atmosphere is a good example of an understanding that is well supported by evidences across many core science fields of understanding and represents an illegitimate science controversy.

(sorry not as clear as it could be, I'll see if I put up a clearer explanation this evening)

 

[Trakar]

By the time science reaches the level of primary school education, there is no rational dispute. Science dispute resides entirely at the level of PhD research. Established yet new science is introduced to the Masters programs, filtering down to undergraduate work within five or ten years. By the time it hits the grade schools, it it well established and that which is presented is that which is certain. It also provides an excelent opporrunuty to introduce web based data research, satistics, and linear regression in Excel. It is an excellent opporrunuty to repeat some of the basic work that climate scientists do, introducing Volstok, Mau Loa, and the grid of worldwide temperature station (there is one near you). It would provide some insight into the complex work done by the IPCC.

I think I see where you were aiming with this, and I might generally agree with the qualification that upper level science isn't quite as hierarchical as your portrayal sounds. Much important science research and discovery takes place at the Masters and even lower graduate degree level. I know of several people who were journal published based upon findings and papers that they authored while undergrads. While the nature of jobs in research labs generally requires advanced degrees and so does kind of establish this hierarchy, its not really as rigid and layered as your words seem to portray,...at the least, not in my experience and understanding.