" I submit to you that any society that is willing to leave teaching critical thinking to the end, teaching only knowledge-by-institutional-authority till then, has a lot more obvious places to look for the roots of its educational problems."

Ours is one of the few societies obsessed with critical thinking at every level, and our system is inferior. Other societies emphasize memorization and internalization of facts and equations, and they perform better. The simple fact is if you don't know the basics, you can't debate the more complicated questions. Emphasizing critical thinking before basic knowledge is putting the cart before the horse. It's like teaching someone chess strategy before they even know how the pieces move.

@ semck...but...children actually lack the capacity to think critically...you're saying we should teach children to do something they're physically incapable of doing. It's like saying we should teach paraplegics to walk or teach people who are less than 5 feet tall to reach 7 foot high shelves without using ladders. You can teach all you like, but your students won't be able to demonstrate the skills you've taught them. (The difference here is that children will eventually be able to think critically, a paraplegic will never walk. And an adult less than 5 feet tall will never grow taller than that.)

High school students lack the ability to think critically? Really? My own experience and history both wildly contradict you.

"I study physics to a large degree, and the further I go, the more I believe there is a god, and the less I believe in any existing religion. "

So you just fill in the "I don't know" with the unsubstantiated assertion that "God did it".
Theists are too impatient to actually work things out, to seek greater understanding. They always want to cut off the inquiry. To declare "God did it" and end the advancement of knowledge.

Putin, see Richard Feynman's fascinating discussion of his educational experiences in Brazil for another view on the value of teaching by memorization, and whether such systems really "do better."
Speaking of Feynman, Mafialligator, read ANYTHING he wrote about his youth, the way he was raised by his father, and the effect it had on him as a scientist and tell me children can't think critically.

Oh high school students are a different case. I was thinking like 6 or 8 or 10.
That said, in my experience, my high school science classes did incorporate a degree of critical thinking. It wasn't all just rote memorization. Proofs of the formulas we learned was part of the classes as well.

Naturally there are also going to be exceptions, some people will develop critical thinking skills before others, and using Feynman as an example generalizable to all society is perhaps not the most convincing argument.

As for your last assertion, Putin (in response to Shocktrooper). While you're right that the "laws of physics" on one definition are our _conceptualization_ of the laws, there would be no equations or laws to write down if there were not order and regularity in nature, external to ourselves. See e.g. physicist Eugene Wigner's "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences."
It's a commonplace -- or it should be, though perhaps it is not among devourers of pop science literature -- that science cannot explain its own effectiveness, the reason for the laws that it describes. So whatever you may think of his conclusions, I don't think it's fair to accuse StormTrooper of "god of the gaps" reasoning, as you are. It's a question science cannot in principle answer.

@ semck.

I absolutely agree with you. Doubt is to be embraced in science as in all human activity. Without it the scientific process becomes moribund and lacks the creative imperative. It is liberating to think that someone will likely prove a paper of yours (particularly in my case!) wrong someday and the process will move on.

"High school students lack the ability to think critically? Really? My own experience and history both wildly contradict you."

You've encountered high school students knowledgeable enough about physics that they can debate the laws of gravity just by taking one high school level course?

Mafia, ah, well. I'm glad to hear it, re: the classes you've taught.
And, yes, Feynman was remarkable. On the other hand, so was his upbringing. It may not be universal for 7 year olds to be able to think critically about science, but it is certainly not 1 in a million, either. (Even if growing up and winning the Nobel is! :-)).
But anyway, yes, regardless of that, I was speaking only about high school. Teaching the kind of thing I'm saying in middle school would be a little aggressive I think, i.e., would probably fail.

At any rate, rote memorization of already existing concepts has it's advantages...namely that every single generation doesn't have to reinvent the wheel. If you just presented all the evidence for evolution without also providing the neo-Darwinian framework in which to understand it, how many kids do you think would actually figure it out? Not many, is my guess. And they'd leave school without understanding the concepts. Perhaps there is some middle ground between these two points, but I don't think adding ID to the mix is an appropriate middle ground.

Never underestimate the collective stupidity of students. I was observing a class (14/15 yr olds) a few months ago where there was an open discussion on whether canabis should be legalised, with plenty of scientific evidence provided and talked about. At the start the majority of students were typically noncommital. After talking in length about the evidence, which was hugely in favour of legalising canabis, they unanimously voted to keep it illegal.

Why? Because they percieve that saying canibis should be illegal is the right answer, and students want to be right more than they want to think. Have a debate of evolution vs creationism in a school where the culture is largely pro-creationism, and creationism will win no matter how much evidence points the other way.

Well, Putin, that's not what I said. Actually, you'll notice I said nothing about "knowledgeable." That's your schtick, not mine.
I have met high schoolers (many) good enough at critical thinking that, if they WERE presented with good information about the laws of gravity, their successes, and their issues, they could form very good opinions about them. I have, for example, seen them do this in many different areas.
And I don't mean they need to learn differential equations, either. Certainly an understanding of that helps. But if the story of Newton is compellingly told, one cannot help but stand in awe of what he did -- of what a breakthrough it was in human knowledge, in our vision of the universe. The discovery of the planets, etc. Then Einstein, and what another amazing feat was GR. And then, Hubble. And dark matter.
Heck, I read books about this stuff when I was a high schooler, and I found it incredibly interesting.
Now here: in all frankness, I don't think I totally "got it" at that time (though, in all frankness, it's also true that nobody was trying to teach it to me on my level). But I also didn't make any crazy fallacies. I understood the process of the discussion, and just realized I should learn more to form better opinions. Which may be exactly what critical thinking leads you to. And I don't think any of the opinions I did venture to form then have proven to be absurd.

Mafia, well, I agree, and I certainly was NOT advocating whatever crazy, progressive methods of teaching you are referring to.
_By all means_ present the theory as it is, fully formed. Just don't fear also presenting the data, the reasoning that led to it, and sure, any critiques and how people respond.
I would have no fear at all presenting arguments for a flat earth in a geography class. I have every confidence that the arguments against it are strong and can be understood, on a rough and ready level, by high school students.

Octavius, it's probably true that they'll come to the wrong conclusion under peer pressure like that, but I don't see why that's what we're concerned about. We're concerned about what happens when they get home and think about things for themselves, on long summer nights. Kids do.
I mean, you know.... kids DO want to know stuff. And they do want that stuff to be right.

"It's a commonplace -- or it should be, though perhaps it is not among devourers of pop science literature -- that science cannot explain its own effectiveness, the reason for the laws that it describes."

The reason is irrelevant. Theists like inventing questions that cannot be answered, and then taunt atheists about the lack of ability to answer them. "What is the purpose of the universe" is such a question. There's no evidence for any purpose, but theists invent this kind of question that is supposed to be so "puzzling".

"Why" questions are not real questions. The only real questions are "how" questions. Why is there regularity in nature is not a real question. It assumes there is a reason for regularity. We have no reason to make such an assumption.

*shrug* You may find that satisfactory, Putin. Either way it doesn't matter. My point was just that you should not accuse Stormtrooper of using god of the gaps for pointing to God for this kind of question.
If you don't believe it's a real question, then my point is doubly valid.
Of course, just realize that you have no more reason to assume that there IS REGULARITY AT ALL than you have to assume that there is a reason for it. But Hume's argument is well known, so I'm sure you know it.

"Actually, you'll notice I said nothing about "knowledgeable." That's your schtick, not mine."

I'm sad that it's only my shtick. Surely the point of education is to become more knowledgeable.

"I have met high schoolers (many) good enough at critical thinking that, if they WERE presented with good information about the laws of gravity, their successes, and their issues, they could form very good opinions about them."

What purpose does it serve to have students have opinions about gravity? Do we just love opinions for their own sake?

"My point was just that you should not accuse Stormtrooper of using god of the gaps for pointing to God for this kind of question."

I still don't get why you say this based on the claim that science can't something. It's still god the gaps reasoning, regardless.

Putin, more knowledgeable, yes, but better thinkers, much moreso.

Do we love opinions for their own sake? Well.... As I've said, I think it would be much better for society and science if instead of accepting "knowledge" by fiat handed down by authority, people reasoned through what they believed. Of course, yes, those opinions are knowledge in the same sense.... but in a much better sense, is my point. Between somebody who believes in relativity because his teacher said so, and somebody who believes in it because Eddington measured the deflection of starlight by the sun and it was precisely what it should have been under GR, I know which I'll take.
If only the former counts as knowledge for you, it's just one more evidence of your bizarre and disastrous view of the desired ends of education.

"I still don't get why you say this based on the claim that science can't something. It's still god the gaps reasoning, regardless."

What you specifically had said was that he was standing in the way of progress by wanting to point to a "god did it" explanation. My point is, he's talking about places where science cannot possibly progress. So he is not standing in the way of anything.

I will add that I imagine your epistemology must be just as satisfying to you as that of the most wilfully ignorant fundamentalist young-earth creationist, because both adopt basically the same methodology: believe what you want, and rule everything else out.

"Why questions aren't really questions?" The heck? You can just assert that, but forgive the rest of the human race if they're not eager to sign on to your arbitrary proclomations.

I'm all for having that level of understanding of relativity, but not when you're just teaching the material for the first time. They call it higher education for a reason. The knowledge is not by "fiat", it's based on our accumulated knowledge and experts on the subject. But you're so dogmatically anti-"authority" that you seem to want to have put every basic fact up to a vote before students can move on to the next step.

This is why teachers can't control classrooms. Because we have ingrained this mentality that teachers don't know any more than the students, they're not "authorities", there's no need for deference. All that matters is that the individual supposedly thinks for himself, doesn't matter that those thoughts are rubbish.

@ Putin ''You've encountered high school students knowledgeable enough about physics that they can debate the laws of gravity just by taking one high school level course? ''

What sort of rubbish is this? Anyone with a partially open mind who has taught the sciences will tell you that the questions asked by intelligent students at all levels provoke them to think more deeply about their subject. Back to basics can be very healthy for all involved.

Only a Dogmatist who sticks his fingers in his ears and screams ''I know the unchallengeable truth and I will not broach any other opinion'' would think otherwise. I would feel sorry for his students as they are not being taught but rather indoctrinated; a pity.

Putin, no, I am not suggesting teaching relativism. Yes, I agree we know things for good reasons. I believe this because I've investigated the reasons. On a few things, maybe we're wrong.
I'm not suggesting putting anything to a vote. What possible relevance would that have? I want each individual student to learn truth, but for good reasons. The opinion of his classmates would not be a good reason.
Of course the teachers know more than the students. The teachers know far, far more. They know WHY we believe these things. That is what they should teach. They know HOW we decide what to believe. That, too they should teach.

" My point is, he's talking about places where science cannot possibly progress. So he is not standing in the way of anything."

Declarations about areas where science *cannot possibly progress* are blanket assertions that haven't been demonstrated. And anyway he's still inserting god in where things are not known. So even if he's not "standing in the way", he's still filling the gaps of understanding with god.

"The heck? You can just assert that, but forgive the rest of the human race if they're not eager to sign on to your arbitrary proclomations."

As opposed to your arbitrary proclamation that science cannot proceed to answer X or Y invented question.

And just to clarify -- yes, they also know a lot of the facts that are the result of these processes, and yes, they'll have to teach a lot of them as facts. There isn't time to teach the reasons for the weights assigned to every element on the periodic table, despite all the ingenuity that went into deducing that. But take a few cases and show how the process works, and if students want to make a case of something else, then sure, time permitting.
Make them use reason, of course. That's another thing the teacher can do. This way, the students will understand where the knowledge came from. And that, they won't forget right away (like, trust me, they do most -- though not all -- of the facts).

"Yes, I agree we know things for good reasons. "

Must be I don't know what the definition of "fiat" is then.

Well, I don't think my proclomation is that arbitrary. I'm pretty sure most any philosopher of science would concur.
But OK, let's give it a shot. How do you suppose scientists might go about addressing the question of why there is physical law?