Or perhaps I should say transferable.
Comment on Week in review 1/27/12 by Joshua
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 1/27/12 by HR
sort of related,t there is a great discussion (audio) of the Scientific Method on the BBC Radio 4 program “In Our Time” that your readers might enjoy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01b1ljm/In_Our_Time_The_Scientific_Method/
Only active until next Thursday.
(the archives of this show stretch back many years and cover an unbelievable number and range of topics. Well worth looking through for those who enjoy learning new stuff from intelligent people)
↧
Comment on Week in review 1/27/12 by NW
Joshua, that’s pretty much what I thought: Generalizability and transferability of virtually all taught skills to other domains is usually weak.
Most of the evidence I know of suggests this is true of almost all taught skills–critical thinking or otherwise.
↧
Comment on Week in review 1/27/12 by Joshua
Judith -
Any comments?:
↧
Comment on Week in review 1/27/12 by David Young
There are certain subjects that if taught correctly will lead to learning critical thinking. One of these is philosophy if taught say from Russell’s History of Western Philosophy or Kaufman’s Critique. These works focus on arguments and critical thinking and questioning of assumptions. I reject the dicotomy of teaching critical thinking or teaching content. It is possible to do both.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 1/27/12 by Joshua
NW -
Sure. It isn’t easy, and the aspect of transfer needs to be an explicit component (one of the biggest misconceptions is that the skills always transfer automatically).
Contrary to what many believe – it is key to start young.
Think of kids who grow up in academically oriented families, where they are challenged to think problems through carefully and thoroughly, questioned about things such as false dichotomies, intellectually stimulated, and encouraged to endure in difficult cognitive tasks, try alternative approaches, etc. We can probably all think of such families and know, intuitively, that all of that interaction is building skills (and affecting physiologically related cognitive development in ways) that transfer across different domains – even if it isn’t necessarily “taught” in an explicit manner. Then think about what might be done if you break those interactions down into their component parts and examine how they might be approached systematically and sequentially. Does anyone really doubt that it would have a potentially beneficial impact?
The problem is that often, however, such an explicit focus is pit against domain-specific content instruction with a zero sum game outlook. Unfortunately, such a perspective is basically encouraged by our dominant educational paradigm, and once that starts happening, important skepticism about issues such as transferability become stumbling blocks because people begin approaching the problem by employing some of that ol’ “motivated reasoning.”
You know – if we don’t line those kids up and give them the ol’ 3 R’s we’re going to spoil them and wind up with a bunch of weak-minded, librul, namby-pambies on our hands.
↧
Comment on Week in review 1/27/12 by NW
My own basically silly opinion, based as it is on my own uncontrolled observations of my own teaching and my own students, follows. For informational purposes, I regularly get high ratings from students and have a couple of teaching awards, but that places me in a fairly large subset of faculty so not a huge big deal.
For most students, a truly memorable class results from an excited teacher. Father Guido Sarducci is right: The only content remembered after 5 years will be five minutes of buzzwords and slogans, for instance “supply and demand.” As funny as that is, Guido misses the most important thing a good teacher does. She does not impart field content, nor does she teach any thinking style (“critical” or otherwise).
Rather, the effective and memorable teacher leaves students with the long-lasting sense that X is exciting, fun and a challenge worth the coin. My most important job is not, therefore, to teach a canonical body of knowledge or a style of thought, but rather to convey a sense of excitement about a topic, and a sense that understanding that topic is a highway, I wanna drive it, all night long.
Doing that… it is a mixture of thespian skills, and real knowledge of the cutting edge as a researcher, and an ability to communicate that cutting edge in simple elevator-time.
Nowadays I teach mostly technical classes, but even so I couldn’t bear it without weaving my own experiences (and those of recent students) into the lectures about the techniques, and communicating our excitement and stuggle as much as possible.
Yes knowledge is motivated, but by what? The notion that it is all motivated by material interests… I am sorry but this is not my experience of either my own research or what turns on my students. The motivation is something old and intrinsic at its best, and that flame can be passed from one generation to the next. But passing the flame is the big thing… neither a particular body of knowledge nor a particular way of thinking.
↧
Comment on Week in review 1/27/12 by Joshua
David Y -
There are certain subjects that if taught correctly will lead to learning critical thinking. One of these is philosophy if taught say from Russell’s History of Western Philosophy or Kaufman’s Critique.
Actually, I guess say that isn’t true (depending on what you mean by “taught correctly). They used to think that teaching Latin would “train the mind” to think logically in the same sense that you train your body by certain physical activities. In point of fact, without a more explicit approach, the “skills” don’t transfer.
“Teaching critical thinking” means much more than simply asking students to deal with subject that require critical thinking. It is an explicit approach that requires explicit instruction. That may very well be a useful context for “teaching critical thinking,” but it isn’t sufficient.
↧
Comment on Week in review 1/27/12 by Joshua
NW –
I have to disagree. Yes, the motivational component is huge – but it is in no way mutually exclusive with teaching “critical thinking” in ways that can transfer.
Again, I will go back to the concept of metacognition – which entails working with students to be deliberate about themselves as learners, and to be aware of themselves as learners and the techniques they use to learn, their areas of strength and weakness, the types of approaches and techniques that are most useful for them, how to employ alternate strategies and evaluate their effectiveness. One way to think of it is working with them to develop an “executive control” over their learning.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 1/27/12 by manacker
lolwot
Thanks for explaining your opinion.
It still doesn’t make sense to me, as a rational person.
It appears to me that you are totally frightened, i.e. suffering under one of the strongest and most primeval of all emotions: FEAR.
Fear of a virtual, computer created threat, which you have been unable to define in any detail, i.e. fear of an imagined horrible unknown.
This would explain to me why you are so emotional in discussing the open letter by the scientists, who were apparently not as emotional about this perceived threat as you appear to be.
I’m personally not moved principally by emotion in this ongoing scientific and political debate – instead by rational skepticism.
So I can accept the open letter as the rational conclusion of a group of pretty intelligent individuals on the potential risks and benefits of AGW, itself, as well as of proposed actions to drastically reduce carbon emissions globally.
Their conclusion is simply that the cures that are being proposed would certainly be far more disruptive to our society, in particular to the least affluent among us, than the postulated threat might possibly be in the future, even in its worst incarnation.
As a rational skeptic, this position makes good sense to me, as I have seen no empirical evidence to support the postulation that there is a serious potential threat to human society or to our environment from AGW.
Since you have not stated specifically WHAT future threat you are afraid of, I must assume that it is simply a virtual, imagined hobgoblin in your mind, which causes you this strong emotion of fear.
My suggestion to you:
- List the specific threats you fear (i.e. 6 meter waves suddenly inundating coastal areas, severe droughts or deadly floods, dreadful hurricanes occurring with increasing frequency and severity, deadly killer heat waves, etc.)
- Then, one by one, look at why you think these horrible, imagined threats are going to happen if humans continue to use the remaining fossil fuel reserves of our planet over the next couple of hundred years until they essentially run out and are replaced with new, as yet undeveloped, technologies.
- In doing so, insist on empirical scientific evidence, based on real-time physical observations or reproducible experimentation to support the individual threats you fear; if there is no such empirical evidence, then free yourself of the fear in your mind.
You’ll be a happier person, lolwot.
Max
↧
Comment on Week in review 1/27/12 by Joshua
NW –
FWIW, I think of it this way: If a student walks out of my classroom at the end of the semester without having a better understanding about him/herself as a learner, then I haven’t fully done my job. That might mean he/she has a better understanding of their strengths and weaknesses, or how to employ and evaluate strategies for their assessing and improving their learning, etc. Some of those skills should be domain-specific, and some should be non domain-specific.
↧
Comment on Week in review 1/27/12 by markus
Ah Josh,
Boo.
↧
Comment on Week in review 1/27/12 by markus
For purity of science, can we please refer to trace gases in our atmosphere, by their correct name. That is;
Atmospheric regulation gasses. Please, no more GHG’s, as there is no greenhouse.
Markus Fitzhenry.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 1/27/12 by WebHubTelescope
No context in the linked blog post. The year 1878 was a positive temperature spike in a sea of negative numbers.
↧
Comment on Week in review 1/27/12 by manacker
Joshua
"Crock of the Week" started off with Newt Gingrich responding to a question by an Iowa primary voter that he would not include in a new book a chapter on "climate change" written by "climate scientist", Katherine Hayhoe.
The interview of Hayhoe rapidly switched to the theme that <em>"much of this is intended to intimidate"</em>, without providing the bridge for this strange shift.
The "Grist" interviewer asked Hayhoe if this move by Gingrich had intimidated her.
Hayhoe, a very appealing young lady, explained that she had spent quite a bit of time on this chapter, which she regretted was now wasted time.
She stated that in science there are <em>"standards of truth and decency"</em>, which should be followed, but that much of the climate debate was <em>"outside of science"</em>.
She stated that, in this debate, the approach was often to <em>"discredit the messenger"</em> rather than the science. To scientists this is shocking, since facts are what is important
Most attacks on her are from men, according to Hayhoe, and this makes them more <em>"threatening and intimidating"</em>
The interviewer then switched to Hayhoe's faith (she is an Enagelical Christian). and asked how her beliefs contrasted with those of what he referred to as the <em>"climate denial machine"</em>.
Hayhoe stated that as a Christian she believed in conserving our resources and our planet and in loving God and our global neighbors.
The conversation then switched to her specific area of scientific research. She mentioned the Great Lakes region, where she feels that global warming will result in <em>"increased risk of heavy rainfall"</em>. The US southwest on the other hand, which is withdrawing water from aquifers more rapidly than this can be replenished for agricultural use, is <em>"facing warmer temperatures"</em> (= more water needed for irrigation)" and increased droughts due to global warming. Although the droughts themselves are physically caused by La Ninas, the natural variability will in the future be superimposed on the climate change extremes to exacerbate the situation, according to Hayhoe.
The intimidation part of the interview was weak (and contrived, in my opinion).
The young scientist being interviewed is a very pleasant person, who is convinced that global warming will cause problems to the regions she has studied and who is operating with a Christian belief system that reinforces her idealized desire to do the right thing for her global neighbors and for the planet.
She opposes the political baggage attached to the global warming controversy and finds it shocking that personal attacks are used in this debate, especially attacks on scientists.
I can accept that this lady is for real, while she may have been used a bit for political reasons by both Gingrich and Grist in the interview.
Max
↧
Comment on Keith Seitter on the ‘uncertainty monster’ by Bad Andrew
For those slow on the uptake…this quoted statement isn’t science. It’s poetry. That such a self-contradictory statement comes from a scientist is well, indicative of where the AMS and Climate Science (and Dr. Curry) are.
Andrew
↧
Comment on Keith Seitter on the ‘uncertainty monster’ by Donald Rapp
In “The Karate Kid” Misogi says: “Answer only matter if ask right question”. The issue is NOT whether there is “evidence that anthropogenic climate change was occurring”. It seems highly likely that some of the warming of the past 120 years was due to anthropogenic activity. The issue IS how much of past climate change is due to anthropogenic activity, and what the future will bring from anthropogenic activity. There is major uncertainty on these questions.
↧
↧
Comment on Keith Seitter on the ‘uncertainty monster’ by incandecentbulb
“too much concern” is “too much” but otherwise political correctness is okay, is that it?
↧
Comment on Keith Seitter on the ‘uncertainty monster’ by Peter317
Anteros, Yes, those cricket scores were more like those which we associate with football 
↧
Comment on Keith Seitter on the ‘uncertainty monster’ by Jim D
Regarding the discussion about convinced and unconvinced, I think Seitter’s definition of convinced is too broad, as mentioned by Anteros, because it does include many skeptical of IPCC’s estimates. Even Lindzen, Spencer, Monckton, etc. would sign onto a 1 degree anthropogenic effect in this century. I would narrow it down by defining convinced as not just of anthropogenic global warming, but of IPCC’s rough estimate of 2-4.5 degrees per doubling, which would imply a warming nearer 3 degrees for this century alone than 1 degree.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
