Wiggling about over semantics wont work....I was clear that teachers AND scientists encourage questioning (cast doubt).
Yes you were indeed
very clear, about something
I never said, but as you wish.
On science? Not really. They should be and are taught how to ask the right questions to find out the facts, truth, data, etc. Then they are taught how to evaluate that information. They can base their opinions on the facts, etc...but they are not encouraged to just make up their own minds.
On everything ideally, and again you misquote me I never said "
just (as in only) to make up their own minds" as you imply. Make up one's own mind means developing the skills to distinguish between true and false based on all sorts of criteria, developing a willingness to reach conclusions through reasoning rather than rote learning, developing skills to think laterally, developing skills to apply critical thinking as opposed to obediently trusting in authority.
Almost all non-trivial discoveries and breakthroughs in the sciences were by people with these kinds of skills.
I've only seen evidence here that you are not capable of the bold...nor several others. So I see little value in your comments on this. In early grades, definitely not. In high school, sure some foundation for science 'history' is useful, as is discussion on scientific theory and methodology.
So you disagree? it is not constructive to develop an ability to understand the difference between proof and evidence between true and false between dogma and reason?
If they dont want to provide the correct answers about evolution on science tests...they should be failed. They can believe what their parents or religion teaches them but they cant substitute it in a science class.
I never said (you are making a habit of this) they should rely on parents, nor did I mention "religion" so you're starting to respond to me by posting
strawman arguments.
Nor did I suggest at any point that students should not fail tests if they give incorrect answers, again
strawman arguments.
Yes it is. It's clearly a scientific principle and should be taught in science classes.
Myths like creationism with no proof, and BS pseudo-science like ID belong...NOT in science classes.
Oh I see what you mean, so expressing skepticism about the veracity of this or that purported process is the same thing as "creationism" or "pseudo-science" and so we can simply disregard such people and whatever it is they may have to say? But what if they happen to be right?
If you actually teach that it is wrong to question authority, to question prevailing beliefs and opinions you will set science back centuries, surely this is obvious?
(Once again, Intelligent Design is not science, it's an end-run using pseudo-science to still attribute man's creation to a higher authority.)
Once again (another
strawman) I did not say "Intelligent Design"
was science, I will say that what it is the exploration of how to develop an answer to a question: How can we tell if some thing we see in nature was or was not designed? did or did not require intelligence in order for it to exist?
You do not get nor have any special right to tell others what questions they may or may not ask, this is why some of what the atheists say here is very much the same mindset as the Catholic church when confronting Galileo.
If religious people had stronger faith, they wouldnt feel the need to force their *beliefs* on others.
For the second or perhaps third time I am not interested in nor have I mentioned "religion", our exchanges would be far better if you commented on what I actually say rather than what you wished I had said. (aka
strawman argument - a form of fallacy)
You might find this instructive, I think it conveys the merits of some of what I say: