77
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
77 points (94.3% liked)
Ask Lemmy
26997 readers
437 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I don't think it's as simple as that. Science is messy and knowing its limitations is just as important as knowing its conclusion.
Scientific opinion can and should be able to change pretty rapidly, the educational system can't.
Besides, a cardiologist is highly unlikely to be able to reliably tell whether a neurological study's conclusions are sound, or not. Let alone someone, who isn't even a doctor.
To top it all up, the monetary incentives in academia are about as corrupt, as it gets. It wasn't so long ago, when studies about how smoking tobacco isn't actually harmful, or addictive, got published in mainstream journals (funded by the tobacco industry, of course).
The result is being taught science that was disproven 20 years ago. I think primary education should focus just as much on critical thinking as it does on learning facts at the very minimum.
I don’t mean cutting edge science. But a basic understanding of physics, mathematics, biology and chemistry.
You can’t understand global warming without physics and mathematics.
You can’t understand a pandemic without biology and mathematics.
And so on