split from: TAM Educators Workshop

[CFLarsen]

I have split this discussion from here http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3429609 I am open to suggestions for a more appropriate forum

I agree that there should not be a conflict but I disagree with it being after the sessions, it should be before to give the educators a "guide to TAM" session just for them to make their experience the most fruitful.

Ideally, sure. But the problem is that most people don't arrive much more than the day before TAM starts. If it is to take place before TAM starts officially, it should be on the morning before registration, which usually starts around noon.

The best part of an evening workshop is that it can go on until people drop from exhaustion. It is always annoying if something interesting going on has to be cut short because of time.

Uhm... when was the last time you checked on the salary of a teacher? Do you know that there are MANY other organizations (scientific and otherwise) that offer workshops for teachers and thus teachers are forced to be selective on which conferences and workshops they can go to. Did that point brought up by kittynh completely miss you? And if you think about it some more, the teachers that probably need the most support and help about skepticism in the classroom are probably the ones from the poorest school districts and where schools have been flagged as "failures" from the No Child Left Behind legislation. Nice to see you have no sympathy for that particular population of educators.

Read my post: It specifically addressed the low income of educators. I offered a suggestion on how teachers at TAM could save money. So I am very much aware of how low income teachers have.

How about, any scientists out there who would like to know how best to package their research work for presentation in the classroom? How about parents interested in keeping their school districts accountable about where funds go? How about the seperation of church and state in the classroom, what is still protected under law and what is not? What about how to keep the encroachment of Intelligent Design out of your classroom (and out of your school board)? How about how to create a network of skeptics that can do informal mentoring or classroom presentations to show that skeptics (and athiests) are real nice people? How about, how to teach the students in your classroom to question claims they see in advertising?

A phrase in your last quote says it all: "...avoid JREF getting less money..." I am skeptical of your true motives... honestly... really.

It's the harsh truth: If educators is to get a discount from JREF, JREF will not get as much income. Don't forget that TAM is a very important fund raiser for JREF. We are there not only to network and learn new stuff, but also very much to support JREF.

If a specific workshop for educators (or whatever interest groups there are) were organized outside the official schedule, not only would more people attend (because they are there anyway, and they merely share the expense), JREF would not get less income.

It's a suggestion. You simply get more for less. Teachers get a cheap workshop on top of everything else JREF offers, JREF doesn't get less money. Win-win. All it takes is for someone to take initiative to set up the workshop.

I think the significance of education needs to be something we get together and discuss, at least in terms of figuring a way of getting people to see just how damn important it is.

A workshop on mneumonics seems to be higher on the JREF agenda than one on how to demonstrate to people how to effectively communicate thinking skills, after all. Sure, it sounds cool and interesting, but if that's the only aim of the conference is to be a celebrity shoulder-rub and present some interesting activities, then I see a huge opportunity missed.

That's blatantly unfair. TAM has always contained a truckload of educational sessions and events. Genie Scott has appeared several times, to explain how she and her organization combats creationism in schools, e.g. when teachers call her for advice on how to tackle the issue. Richard Dawkins writes science so everyone understands it - after all, he holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford. There's education on a high level, right there. Richard Wiseman stresses that it is very important to explain so average people understand - also highly educational. The Mythbusters have a very popular show about how to test things scientifically. And, of course, Phil Plait, enfant terrible.

SC, as sad as Claus is, he's not the only one who sees education on the same level as magic tricks and other interest groups.

I gave an example of how another interest group could form a workshop at TAM. Not everything at TAM is about educators. There are all sorts of people attending. Magicians, truckdrivers, ad people, IT people, writers, people from all shades of life. Sometimes one group gets a little focus, sometimes it is another.

Other groups could be focused on nationality, gender (gee, isn't there a group of "Skepchicks" running around at TAM?), or specific issues, like Creationism, Astrology, Psychics, or what-have-you. It all comes down to activism.

Are you going to work on setting up a teacher's workshop at TAM outside the official schedule?

Yeah and he totally missed that Neil deGrasse Tyson is on the "Board of Directors of the Harlem Educational Activities Fund - HEAF, an organization that helps inner city children from disadvantaged backgrounds develop the attitudes, skills and values that will enable them to lead satisfying and productive lives in mainstream American life." (taken from Tyson's website)

You would think... you would think... but people just don't think.... {sigh}

I didn't miss it at all. If anything, having Tyson at TAM is even more evidence that JREF takes education very, very seriously.

[athon]

That's blatantly unfair. TAM has always contained a truckload of educational sessions and events. Genie Scott has appeared several times, to explain how she and her organization combats creationism in schools, e.g. when teachers call her for advice on how to tackle the issue.

Sure, Genie Scott has spoken of what she's done. Which is great - it shows that education is important, and there are major issues such as creationism in science classes which need to be addressed.

If anything it serves to prove my point. Education is incredibly important.

But I don't recall much more than Genie Scott saying what she does. I don't begrudge that, but it hardly gave people any idea of how they should be doing things effectively. Just that she has done it.

Richard Dawkins writes science so everyone understands it - after all, he holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford. There's education on a high level, right there.No different to my above comment. How many people can do what Dawkins has done? There are far more people who have some form of sway over educating minors than there are people who could mirror Dawkins actions.

Richard Wiseman stresses that it is very important to explain so average people understand - also highly educational. The Mythbusters have a very popular show about how to test things scientifically. And, of course, Phil Plait, enfant terrible.What are you saying here, Claus? You don't seem to have an argument other than 'TAM tells people education is important'. We know that. But here is a prime opportunity to take the next step - to not just say it, but to look into 'how'.

Again, it's a swimming club holding an event in a field, telling people it's important to know how to swim. Mind you, people aren't being shown the moves.

I gave an example of how another interest group could form a workshop at TAM. Not everything at TAM is about educators. There are all sorts of people attending. Magicians, truckdrivers, ad people, IT people, writers, people from all shades of life. Sometimes one group gets a little focus, sometimes it is another.Truckdriving isn't going to help people to be critical, although truckdrivers might be able to educate. Ad people might want to know how to use advertising effectively. IT people to know how to ply their trade to educate people in thinking critically. Writers to know the most effective ways to word their articles. Education isn't just an interest group - it underlies how people learn new things.

Amazingly, there have been several workshops in media. Which is great, don't get me wrong. But how many people would have easy access to the media, compared with those who are in a capacity to educate somebody? How many TAM attendees do you think have been on radio, television or in print versus how many have trained somebody, taught them, or coached them in some way? How many parents versus small-time celebrities? How many opportunities would each TAM attendee have in their life to teach somebody, compared with how many opportunities would each have to be influencing a media article?

Other groups could be focused on nationality, gender (gee, isn't there a group of "Skepchicks" running around at TAM?), or specific issues, like Creationism, Astrology, Psychics, or what-have-you. It all comes down to activism.So you say. For as long as the attitude is that education is just another interest group, skepticism will simply be another fad I'm afraid. A side-group equated with a hobby or interest. Unless critical thinking becomes a way people think, skepticism will never be taken seriously by the majority of a population.

Are you going to work on setting up a teacher's workshop at TAM outside the official schedule?How does this support your claim that the JREF is doing all it can to take education seriously?

I didn't miss it at all. If anything, having Tyson at TAM is even more evidence that JREF takes education very, very seriously.No, it's more evidence that TAM has some big name speakers. Without knowing what Tyson will be speaking on, unless it does more than tell people education is important, it won't be a step forward.

Floundering in the shallows, wishing people would do more with skepticism gets us nowhere. It's all feel-good slaps on the back and warm fuzzies. Mind you, while we've formed a solid community, the real world outside of it still turns.

We need more than to just be constantly reminded education is important. We know that. The trumpet has sounded - now we need to know how.

Athon

[CFLarsen]

Sure, Genie Scott has spoken of what she's done. Which is great - it shows that education is important, and there are major issues such as creationism in science classes which need to be addressed.

If anything it serves to prove my point. Education is incredibly important.

Nobody is saying otherwise.

But I don't recall much more than Genie Scott saying what she does. I don't begrudge that, but it hardly gave people any idea of how they should be doing things effectively. Just that she has done it.

Much more than that: Teachers now know that they can contact her organization for advice on how they can better implement evolution in their teaching methods, and how to counter Creationist methods.

No different to my above comment. How many people can do what Dawkins has done? There are far more people who have some form of sway over educating minors than there are people who could mirror Dawkins actions.

This isn't about emulating the speakers' careers, but about what methods they are using to educate people. You can learn a lot by listening to Dawkins.

What are you saying here, Claus? You don't seem to have an argument other than 'TAM tells people education is important'. We know that. But here is a prime opportunity to take the next step - to not just say it, but to look into 'how'.

Again, it's a swimming club holding an event in a field, telling people it's important to know how to swim. Mind you, people aren't being shown the moves.

You are flat-out wrong here. TAM is full of ways to show people how to "swim".

Truckdriving isn't going to help people to be critical, although truckdrivers might be able to educate. Ad people might want to know how to use advertising effectively. IT people to know how to ply their trade to educate people in thinking critically. Writers to know the most effective ways to word their articles. Education isn't just an interest group - it underlies how people learn new things.

Amazingly, there have been several workshops in media. Which is great, don't get me wrong. But how many people would have easy access to the media, compared with those who are in a capacity to educate somebody? How many TAM attendees do you think have been on radio, television or in print versus how many have trained somebody, taught them, or coached them in some way? How many parents versus small-time celebrities? How many opportunities would each TAM attendee have in their life to teach somebody, compared with how many opportunities would each have to be influencing a media article?

You would be astounded if you knew how easy it is to get access to the media - once you know how to do it. The media is constantly hungry for two things only: Good stories and good storytellers.

Do homework on the journalists who are already critical of wooism. Work up a relationship with them, e.g. by finding stories for them. If your story is well-presented and well-researched, they will welcome it with open arms. They don't fear unemployment nearly as much as they fear the empty page. Every day is a hellish struggle to find new stories.

If you want to be in the media yourself, train yourself. Is your voice good on radio? Do you speak coherently? How is your presence on TV? What clothes to wear? Where should your eyes go?

So you say. For as long as the attitude is that education is just another interest group, skepticism will simply be another fad I'm afraid. A side-group equated with a hobby or interest. Unless critical thinking becomes a way people think, skepticism will never be taken seriously by the majority of a population.

As a teacher, you view skepticism from your side of the road, while others have other approaches. Isn't magic a really good way to show people how easily they can be fooled? Isn't it good to have solid knowledge about astronomy if you are going up against astrologers?

The point is, you also need knowledge about the subject you are countering. Education methods are really nice, but you also need knowledge. The two go together.

How does this support your claim that the JREF is doing all it can to take education seriously?

I am saying that JREF does a lot, and would naturally do more, if it could. You say it needs to do more. I say: Go right ahead.

No, it's more evidence that TAM has some big name speakers. Without knowing what Tyson will be speaking on, unless it does more than tell people education is important, it won't be a step forward.

Tyson is a big name speaker because he is a big time educator.

Floundering in the shallows, wishing people would do more with skepticism gets us nowhere. It's all feel-good slaps on the back and warm fuzzies. Mind you, while we've formed a solid community, the real world outside of it still turns.

We need more than to just be constantly reminded education is important. We know that. The trumpet has sounded - now we need to know how.

Then, share your knowledge at TAM6. Do you have enough material for, say, 1 hour?

[athon]

Much more than that: Teachers now know that they can contact her organization for advice on how they can better implement evolution in their teaching methods, and how to counter Creationist methods.

You're just not getting it. I'm not saying it's not important or useful. It's great that people know what is out there. At no point am I suggesting TAM shouldn't be about making people aware of the community and its links. In fact, I've said a few times it is its greatest strength. However this is where it has stopped short - it's all 'Look, here's great people who do great things'. Inspiration is not something TAM is short on. But the 'how to' is greatly lacking.

This isn't about emulating the speakers' careers, but about what methods they are using to educate people. You can learn a lot by listening to Dawkins.

Really? Given I'm an educator, I might have picked up on how the average Joe might be able to use what he said in a practical sense with the resources they each have access to. Dawkins was a great speaker to listen to; I got quite fired up listening to him. But there was nothing in his address which gave people the tools to educate effectively.

You are flat-out wrong here. TAM is full of ways to show people how to "swim".

Sadly, that's just not the case.

From what I've been told by a few people, the US has a rather ignorant view of education. And that's by educators and other people from the US. So I could forgive such stupid comments as 'education is the same as communication' and 'when it comes to knowing how people learn, we are still in the dark ages'. I can understand it when people avoid educational matters as they feel they just don't understand them.

But here's the thing; if I were running an IT conference, I'd be damn sure I'd be asking experts in IT. I wouldn't just ask some guy who uses a computer in my office, or feel since I've been on the internet I'm an IT expert. I'd want advice on the latest in IT research and technology.

Here, as skeptics interested in communicating skepticism, we're seeking ways to get people to change their way of thinking. No easy task. It takes an understanding of many factors to find effective methods of addressing a population effectively. So it would seem only natural to look at the research on education. To bring in speakers who can give people the tools to teach. To conduct workshops on effective techniques in communicating and educating.

We've got some good educators, sure. And they're certainly inspirational. But I find it frustrating that when somebody says from their professional point of view 'It looks pretty, but it's not really getting the job done as well as it could', they're told they don't know what they're talking about.

You would be astounded if you knew how easy it is to get access to the media - once you know how to do it. The media is constantly hungry for two things only: Good stories and good storytellers.

Gee, Claus. Who out of the two of us runs a radio show? Who has had media training? Who had to negotiate the media for a body of science presenters? I think I know a little something about the media.

You display such blind ignorance of how the real world works time and time again. No, it isn't a simple matter of going out there and saying 'I've got something to say, listen!'. Most people would have the door shut on them. Trust me, I had to do it in promotion of quite an interesting science program for a year. It's very hit and miss.

My point is, more people would have access to being good educators than they would to being media representatives.

As a teacher, you view skepticism from your side of the road, while others have other approaches. Isn't magic a really good way to show people how easily they can be fooled? Isn't it good to have solid knowledge about astronomy if you are going up against astrologers?

How do you use magic effectively to change people's thinking? Magic is a great teaching aid. I've used it often in the classroom to great effect. But on its own, without knowing how to use it in a context that will get people to think critically, it's wasted.

As for having good knowledge, I've not said it shouldn't play a part. Information is essential. But again, on its own it is useless.

Effective education is not 'one way of seeing how to get people to learn'.

The point is, you also need knowledge about the subject you are countering. Education methods are really nice, but you also need knowledge. The two go together.

Exactly. One needs the other to be effective. We have the knowledge, and a good supply of it. And better yet, a strong network of experts who can fill in what we don't know. Yet people who can show others how to educate...that is something lacking.

I am saying that JREF does a lot, and would naturally do more, if it could. You say it needs to do more. I say: Go right ahead.

This is the most idiotic statement ever. Seriously; I say the JREF should be doing more, as an 'educational' foundation, and your response is for me to do more?

I don't think I need to underline what it is that I do happen to do. I've worked hard to get here, and will continue to do so to get the message out there. I've expressed over the years how I'd be more than happy to be involved with doing something with education at TAM. To suggest in the same breath that JREF does enough with education but I should do more makes no sense at all.

Then, share your knowledge at TAM6. Do you have enough material for, say, 1 hour?

You're simply not getting it, Claus. I'm not sure why I continue to waste time explaining it when you're more interested in simply arguing than really understanding the situation.

Athon

[CFLarsen]

You're just not getting it. I'm not saying it's not important or useful. It's great that people know what is out there. At no point am I suggesting TAM shouldn't be about making people aware of the community and its links. In fact, I've said a few times it is its greatest strength. However this is where it has stopped short - it's all 'Look, here's great people who do great things'. Inspiration is not something TAM is short on. But the 'how to' is greatly lacking.

Remind me, but weren't you at TAM when Genie also were? If so, how can you possibly have missed out on what the National Center for Science Education (http://www.ncseweb.org/about.asp) is about?

Get it? They help teachers counter Creationism. How, when, what.

As a teacher, what more could you possibly ask for? They are there for you.

Really? Given I'm an educator, I might have picked up on how the average Joe might be able to use what he said in a practical sense with the resources they each have access to. Dawkins was a great speaker to listen to; I got quite fired up listening to him. But there was nothing in his address which gave people the tools to educate effectively.

Why not? Dawkins holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford. Where the heck did he go wrong, when it comes to teaching other people to think skeptically?

Sadly, that's just not the case.

From what I've been told by a few people,

You can't possibly demand that I take that statement seriously.

the US has a rather ignorant view of education.

Whoa. Who are you attacking now? JREF or the United States? You are not going to claim that JREF is representative of the United States, are you?

Make up your mind on who you want to attack, and stick to that.

But here's the thing; if I were running an IT conference, I'd be damn sure I'd be asking experts in IT. I wouldn't just ask some guy who uses a computer in my office, or feel since I've been on the internet I'm an IT expert. I'd want advice on the latest in IT research and technology.

Here, as skeptics interested in communicating skepticism, we're seeking ways to get people to change their way of thinking. No easy task. It takes an understanding of many factors to find effective methods of addressing a population effectively. So it would seem only natural to look at the research on education. To bring in speakers who can give people the tools to teach. To conduct workshops on effective techniques in communicating and educating.

We've got some good educators, sure. And they're certainly inspirational. But I find it frustrating that when somebody says from their professional point of view 'It looks pretty, but it's not really getting the job done as well as it could', they're told they don't know what they're talking about.

OK, then. Let's take it from there. What can you offer?

Gee, Claus. Who out of the two of us runs a radio show? Who has had media training? Who had to negotiate the media for a body of science presenters? I think I know a little something about the media.

Don't try to belittle what I do, mate. Just because I don't seek the limelight in the media doesn't mean I don't do my fair share of skeptic footwork, both with domestic media and internationally. You may not see everything I do, but that's OK with me. As long as the message gets out there, I'm more than happy.

You display such blind ignorance of how the real world works time and time again. No, it isn't a simple matter of going out there and saying 'I've got something to say, listen!'. Most people would have the door shut on them. Trust me, I had to do it in promotion of quite an interesting science program for a year. It's very hit and miss.

My point is, more people would have access to being good educators than they would to being media representatives.

It isn't either-or. It's both, in various forms, at different times. That's what you are missing.

How do you use magic effectively to change people's thinking? Magic is a great teaching aid. I've used it often in the classroom to great effect. But on its own, without knowing how to use it in a context that will get people to think critically, it's wasted.

I have yet to see magic being used outside context at TAM. Every time you see a magic trick at TAM, it's because the magicians - and have we had a stellar line of those - want to show us how to think skeptically.

Remember Jerry Andrus? You couldn't walk past his table with doodahs without being lasso'd in for a demonstration on how easily your own senses could fool you. He didn't care if he had an audience of 100 or just 1, he would just as happily mess with your senses. ***** deadly, he was.

That's education. Granted, not in a schoolmarm fashion - but education it was.

As for having good knowledge, I've not said it shouldn't play a part. Information is essential. But again, on its own it is useless.

Effective education is not 'one way of seeing how to get people to learn'.

Yes, it is. There are many ways to get people to realize that woo is poo. Education is one, but certainly not the only one.

Exactly. One needs the other to be effective. We have the knowledge, and a good supply of it. And better yet, a strong network of experts who can fill in what we don't know. Yet people who can show others how to educate...that is something lacking.

Let's draw on that network. You are certainly a part of that. Offer something. What will be your contribution?

This is the most idiotic statement ever. Seriously; I say the JREF should be doing more, as an 'educational' foundation, and your response is for me to do more?

No, I'm not. I'm asking what you can do. I am asking how you will improve the situation.

For an educator, you show a remarkable lack of ability to listen. If you don't listen, you don't teach - you lecture.

I don't think I need to underline what it is that I do happen to do. I've worked hard to get here, and will continue to do so to get the message out there. I've expressed over the years how I'd be more than happy to be involved with doing something with education at TAM. To suggest in the same breath that JREF does enough with education but I should do more makes no sense at all.

Yes, it does. Because you can't rely on JREF to lead the way. You can't sit back and wait for JREF to take initiative. If you want something done, the best way to ensure it is done is to do it yourself.

That's how JREF came about. That's how the Skeptic Society came about. BadAstronomy. Skeptico. SkepticReport. And every other skeptic initiative.

If you feel there is more to be done, don't sit behind your computer and whine. Do something.

You're simply not getting it, Claus. I'm not sure why I continue to waste time explaining it when you're more interested in simply arguing than really understanding the situation.

I do understand the situation. You want educators with experience to teach other educators how to educate other people to think skeptically. You are one such educator - no doubt about that. You certainly know more than the average Teaching Joe. Share what you know.

Do you have enough material for, say, 1 hour?

[athon]

Remind me, but weren't you at TAM when Genie also were? If so, how can you possibly have missed out on what the National Center for Science Education (http://www.ncseweb.org/about.asp) is about?

Get it? They help teachers counter Creationism. How, when, what.

I was there. And I heard what she had to say, and was informed about her services. Great stuff. Did I learn how to apply it in my field? No. I found a resource. That's fantastic to know about, and serves a great purpose, but isn't giving people skills. It's advertising a service.

Why not? Dawkins holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford. Where the heck did he go wrong, when it comes to teaching other people to think skeptically?

Yes. Inspirational. I never said it wasn't. However, did he give people skills, or did he show people what is achievable? Both are important.

Whoa. Who are you attacking now? JREF or the United States? You are not going to claim that JREF is representative of the United States, are you?

Actually, I was showing how I understand why the minimal feedback I get from the JREF on the matter is rather narrow minded. I voiced these concerns to an email to Randi. I never heard back, although apparently it was passed on to Jeff. His response? Well, I alluded to it above.

I can understand why the JREF feels education is the same as communication, that 'education' in my context is a school-teacher thing etc. From what I was told by others, this is common in the US. That's not an attack; it simply seems to be a common perception, according to people from the US themselves. Education isn't seen as a real field of study, or taken seriously by the majority in US society. The 'those who can, do, those who can't, teach' is a serious thought to many.

But just because I can understand why they think that, doesn't mean I feel I should stand back and leave them to feel that way.

OK, then. Let's take it from there. What can you offer?

That is not the point. It would be the point if the JREF were to say 'Athon, you seem to know a bit about this. What advice would you give, or what can you do to help out?'. Then, it would be a proactive approach of the JREF to see education as something more than what it does. Instead, it's a person outside critically evaluating the effectiveness of what TAM does versus what it can offer, and then going on his own to address it outside of the JREF's assistance.

Don't try to belittle what I do, mate. Just because I don't seek the limelight in the media doesn't mean I don't do my fair share of skeptic footwork, both with domestic media and internationally. You may not see everything I do, but that's OK with me. As long as the message gets out there, I'm more than happy.

Wow, touchy. I wasn't belittling you at all, but merely showing you that what you say is nothing like what the real world is like. I speak from personal experience dealing with the media, while you speak from what you imagine it to be like. I speak from professional experience on current educational research, on how education is more than just giving people information but changing philosophies. Some people have that philosophy in some form already, so the information is necessary. Meanwhile, a large percentage of the population doesn't.



Missing it? I bloody agreed with it! I just said both are necessary. But the education part is lacking. We're being told that there are resources out there, and told it's important, and have inspirational speakers saying 'Education is important', but then go away without the skills to deal with it. Instead we have skeptics think it's about trying to get onto the media to change things. Fine, some might manage that. Good for them. But how do they then do more than just voice their view when they are there?

[quote]I have yet to see magic being used outside context at TAM. Every time you see a magic trick at TAM, it's because the magicians - and have we had a stellar line of those - want to show us how to think skeptically.

Remember Jerry Andrus? You couldn't walk past his table with doodahs without being lasso'd in for a demonstration on how easily your own senses could fool you. He didn't care if he had an audience of 100 or just 1, he would just as happily mess with your senses. ***** deadly, he was.

Sure, I agree. And I never said it was devoid of any educational resources. Gerry had fantastic tools to use, and I've used them myself. They are gold. But how would you slot that into some form of framework? A magic show is pretty useless unless you know how to put it forward in such a manner that it will change somebody's mind.

Thing that you don't get, Claus, is that putting these things out there isn't enough. Fine, do a magic trick. Write an article on homeopathy being bunk. That's all well and good. Without knowing how to apply them they will do little more preach to the converted. In itself, that's far from a bad thing. But there is a resistance to take it further and educate people in critical thinking.

That's education. Granted, not in a schoolmarm fashion - but education it was.

'Schoolmarm' fashion has nothing to do with what I'm on about. The fact you return to it yet again shows you don't want to believe this is about something more.

Yes, it is. There are many ways to get people to realize that woo is poo. Education is one, but certainly not the only one.

Really? How else do you change a philosophy, Claus? How else do you create critical thinkers? Education is knowing how to create an environment in which people will learn. It's knowing how phrase things in a manner that people will be happy to look at the information as being useful. It's understanding the demographic of your audience and knowing how to select and phrase relevant information that makes sense to them. It's promoting skills over content, about encouraging people to have the confidence to admit when they had it wrong in the face of anomalous information.

What other field of study can do these things? I won't hold my breath for an answer.

Let's draw on that network. You are certainly a part of that. Offer something. What will be your contribution?

Again, it's beside the point. Indeed, people from outside the JREF could organise outside of TAM something on education, parasiting TAM's influence. How does that disprove my point that the JREF itself does not recognise that more could be done?

For an educator, you show a remarkable lack of ability to listen. If you don't listen, you don't teach - you lecture.

I'm in this position because I dared to do more than just talk. I asked why science education was failing many of us, and why people weren't thinking critically. I listened to experts who had researched science education and communication, and studied under groups like Australia's Centre of Public Awareness of Science. So to be accused of not listening is laughable. The very reason I'm voicing these concerns is because I refused to just accept we were being effective without evidence of the fact, and chose to ask questions about how we could do better.

Yes, it does. Because you can't rely on JREF to lead the way. You can't sit back and wait for JREF to take initiative. If you want something done, the best way to ensure it is done is to do it yourself.

Gee, it's an 'educational' foundation who can't lead the way in education. Now that's sad.

As I said before; it's not like I'm suggesting Randi himself needs to run a workshop on education. I'm not even suggesting anybody in the foundation needs to have any sort of expertise in education. However, you'd think they would at least have an advisor on pedagogical matters who could suggest ways of educating people on critical thinking. Instead, it's dismissed and ignored.

If an IT company said 'sure we're IT; we have computers', they'd hardly be taken very seriously. Well, that's pretty much how it is with the JREF.

If you feel there is more to be done, don't sit behind your computer and whine. Do something.

Yup. Completely missed the point. Not surprised, to be honest.

Let's try another analogy;
'This box of crackers says there's a toy inside. But there's no toy!'
'You can play with the box. It's a toy.'
'Sure. I see that. But you'd think that there'd be something a little more toy-like here.'
'Why not go and buy one?'
'Oh, I've got toys. And I'll probably go and buy one. But it says there's a toy in here-'
'Then go out and buy one and quit whining about it.'
'I'm saying that if the box says there's a toy inside, there should be more than just the box, even if it could serve as a toy.'
'Toys are there because people make them. If you're worried, go make a toy.'
'But...the box says...'

Analogy; I do a great deal with science and education. It's my job, for crying out loud. I've run teacher workshops, written media articles, have a radio show...and the moment I compare what the JREF does regarding education with other educational groups, I'm told to 'stop whining and do something about it.'

Insane.

I do understand the situation. You want educators with experience to teach other educators how to educate other people to think skeptically. You are one such educator - no doubt about that. You certainly know more than the average Teaching Joe. Share what you know.

Not quite. Try 'educators with experience and knowledge in how people learn to share with others how to effectively teach critical thinking'.

Athon

[CFLarsen]

Actually, I was showing how I understand why the minimal feedback I get from the JREF on the matter is rather narrow minded. I voiced these concerns to an email to Randi. I never heard back, although apparently it was passed on to Jeff. His response? Well, I alluded to it above.

Don't be discouraged if you don't get feedback right away. JREF is a minuscule organization with a ton of work. Take it up in person with Randi at TAM, if you feel you can't get through via email.

I can understand why the JREF feels education is the same as communication, that 'education' in my context is a school-teacher thing etc. From what I was told by others, this is common in the US. That's not an attack; it simply seems to be a common perception, according to people from the US themselves. Education isn't seen as a real field of study, or taken seriously by the majority in US society. The 'those who can, do, those who can't, teach' is a serious thought to many.

But just because I can understand why they think that, doesn't mean I feel I should stand back and leave them to feel that way.

It isn't just the US: Education is not seen as particularly important anywhere. Oh, politicans may say it is, but they rarely follow up on it.

That is not the point. It would be the point if the JREF were to say 'Athon, you seem to know a bit about this. What advice would you give, or what can you do to help out?'. Then, it would be a proactive approach of the JREF to see education as something more than what it does. Instead, it's a person outside critically evaluating the effectiveness of what TAM does versus what it can offer, and then going on his own to address it outside of the JREF's assistance.

Given JREF's size, it will always be a person outside bringing in resources of various kinds.

Wow, touchy. I wasn't belittling you at all, but merely showing you that what you say is nothing like what the real world is like. I speak from personal experience dealing with the media, while you speak from what you imagine it to be like.

Absolutely not. I also have personal experience dealing with the media. I know who I can contact if I have a good story - or the other way around: We (Skeptica) also get inquiries from the media. Not as many as we would like, of course, but we can't expect the moon.

I speak from professional experience on current educational research, on how education is more than just giving people information but changing philosophies. Some people have that philosophy in some form already, so the information is necessary. Meanwhile, a large percentage of the population doesn't.

Then, it's your job to teach them otherwise. You are the one with the teaching skills.

Sure, I agree. And I never said it was devoid of any educational resources. Gerry had fantastic tools to use, and I've used them myself. They are gold. But how would you slot that into some form of framework? A magic show is pretty useless unless you know how to put it forward in such a manner that it will change somebody's mind.

Thing that you don't get, Claus, is that putting these things out there isn't enough. Fine, do a magic trick. Write an article on homeopathy being bunk. That's all well and good. Without knowing how to apply them they will do little more preach to the converted. In itself, that's far from a bad thing. But there is a resistance to take it further and educate people in critical thinking.

Again, that's your job as a teacher: To put the information forward in such a manner that it will change somebody's mind. JREF provides the information you need to do this, and others do that, too.

You want JREF to teach teachers how to be teachers. They already are.

Really? How else do you change a philosophy, Claus? How else do you create critical thinkers? Education is knowing how to create an environment in which people will learn. It's knowing how phrase things in a manner that people will be happy to look at the information as being useful. It's understanding the demographic of your audience and knowing how to select and phrase relevant information that makes sense to them. It's promoting skills over content, about encouraging people to have the confidence to admit when they had it wrong in the face of anomalous information.

What other field of study can do these things? I won't hold my breath for an answer.

I think a lot of your frustration stems from your insistence that only teachers can educate.

Again, it's beside the point. Indeed, people from outside the JREF could organise outside of TAM something on education, parasiting TAM's influence. How does that disprove my point that the JREF itself does not recognise that more could be done?

I haven't seen any such admission, quite contrary. If it was feasable to expand TAM to more days, I'm sure JREF would jump at the chance. Unfortunately, it isn't. Four days is a long time for some with little vacation time / time away from work.

I'm in this position because I dared to do more than just talk. I asked why science education was failing many of us, and why people weren't thinking critically. I listened to experts who had researched science education and communication, and studied under groups like Australia's Centre of Public Awareness of Science. So to be accused of not listening is laughable. The very reason I'm voicing these concerns is because I refused to just accept we were being effective without evidence of the fact, and chose to ask questions about how we could do better.

What I mean is: You don't listen to people who think that education isn't merely done by teachers. You have to accept that there are many ways to educate people.

Gee, it's an 'educational' foundation who can't lead the way in education. Now that's sad.

As I said before; it's not like I'm suggesting Randi himself needs to run a workshop on education. I'm not even suggesting anybody in the foundation needs to have any sort of expertise in education. However, you'd think they would at least have an advisor on pedagogical matters who could suggest ways of educating people on critical thinking. Instead, it's dismissed and ignored.

If an IT company said 'sure we're IT; we have computers', they'd hardly be taken very seriously. Well, that's pretty much how it is with the JREF.

You forget just how tiny JREF is. There simply aren't the resources available to lead the entire world's skeptical teachers in the manner you want.

Personally, I don't think it is a good idea to have any skeptical organization lead the way in education. A monolithic-like organization that coordinates teaching lessons on skepticism and critical thinking for all the world's children? I don't think so.

Yup. Completely missed the point. Not surprised, to be honest.

Let's try another analogy;
'This box of crackers says there's a toy inside. But there's no toy!'
'You can play with the box. It's a toy.'
'Sure. I see that. But you'd think that there'd be something a little more toy-like here.'
'Why not go and buy one?'
'Oh, I've got toys. And I'll probably go and buy one. But it says there's a toy in here-'
'Then go out and buy one and quit whining about it.'
'I'm saying that if the box says there's a toy inside, there should be more than just the box, even if it could serve as a toy.'
'Toys are there because people make them. If you're worried, go make a toy.'
'But...the box says...'

Analogy; I do a great deal with science and education. It's my job, for crying out loud. I've run teacher workshops, written media articles, have a radio show...and the moment I compare what the JREF does regarding education with other educational groups, I'm told to 'stop whining and do something about it.'

Insane.

Yes, it's your job to teach. But you need something to teach and you can get that from places like JREF or Genie's organization. What you do with it is not up to them. They can't tell you how to teach your students, that's your responsibility.

Not quite. Try 'educators with experience and knowledge in how people learn to share with others how to effectively teach critical thinking'.

Who would you like to see run such a workshop?

[athon]

Given JREF's size, it will always be a person outside bringing in resources of various kinds.

You simply don't read what isn't convenient to your argument, do you? How do you call yourself skeptical when you read so selectively?

I've said a number of times that it isn't necessary for the JREF to have its own resources to directly be involved with educational matters. It's shown its strength is in networking and seeking advice from professionals. I've suggested a number of times who I'd like to see run a workshop, or who to turn to for advice on the situation. And my suggestions are hardly exhaustive, by any means. There's a world of stuff out there. But rather than investigate, as it does with all other matters, it chooses to claim it hasn't the resources.

So, it has the resources for everything BUT getting some idea of the current state of educational research? :rolleyes:

Absolutely not. I also have personal experience dealing with the media. I know who I can contact if I have a good story - or the other way around: We (Skeptica) also get inquiries from the media. Not as many as we would like, of course, but we can't expect the moon.

You've avoided the point; is it more likely the average person would have dealings with the media, or be in a situation where they can educate somebody?

Then, it's your job to teach them otherwise. You are the one with the teaching skills.

So the only people who can teach others is a teacher like me? Later on you say;

What I mean is: You don't listen to people who think that education isn't merely done by teachers. You have to accept that there are many ways to educate people.

So which is it? The fact is I've said this over and over. Another example of you conveniently not paying attention to what is said in favour of what your think is being said.

Again, that's your job as a teacher: To put the information forward in such a manner that it will change somebody's mind. JREF provides the information you need to do this, and others do that, too.

And back we swing again. So who can educate, Claus? Just teachers, or more than just teachers? You know my opinion on that.

You want JREF to teach teachers how to be teachers. They already are.

No Claus. Try reading what I've said. It'll save pixels by not having to repeat it all again.

I think a lot of your frustration stems from your insistence that only teachers can educate.

*sigh*

I haven't seen any such admission, quite contrary. If it was feasable to expand TAM to more days, I'm sure JREF would jump at the chance. Unfortunately, it isn't. Four days is a long time for some with little vacation time / time away from work.

Again, it's got time to have a workshop on mneumonics, but not on how to give people the skills to know how to deliver information. A question of priorities. I think matters of education are a little more important than memory tricks.

You forget just how tiny JREF is. There simply aren't the resources available to lead the entire world's skeptical teachers in the manner you want.

The manner I want? Which is what? You've misunderstood everything else I've said, so I'd love to know just what twisted idea you've got on this one.

This tiny little organisation seems large enough to pull off one of the world's biggest skeptics conferences, attracting some of the biggest names and biggest crowds, but is too small to inquire of who might be able to advise them in current educational matters? Bollocks.

Personally, I don't think it is a good idea to have any skeptical organization lead the way in education. A monolithic-like organization that coordinates teaching lessons on skepticism and critical thinking for all the world's children? I don't think so.

Ah, is this an informed opinion on education, or just more Claus make-believe?

Here's the thing; it's clear you wouldn't have the first clue about anything educational from the nonsense you've sprouted here. But you know, that's cool. I fully admit I don't know a lot about IT. I create web pages as part of my job, and yet still have to ask an expert's advice on all matters of html coding. Thing is, I don't have the misguided view that I know a lot about IT just because I surf the web. Yet some people feel they know all about education simply because they've had some contact with it in their life.

Fact is, from what you've shown, you don't seem to have the first clue on the subject. Nothing wrong with that. There's plenty wrong with the delusion that you do feel you know a lot on the matter.

Yes, it's your job to teach. But you need something to teach and you can get that from places like JREF or Genie's organization. What you do with it is not up to them. They can't tell you how to teach your students, that's your responsibility.

Unbelievable. Seriously. Unbelievable. Now it's a teacher's job to teach again, and nobody else's.

And yet you're the same one before who agreed that the 'what' needs the 'how' as well. So the JREF provides the 'what', but it's up to everybody else to figure the 'how' on their own. I'm aware this is the situation. I'm saying it's a shallow approach which falls short of the mark.

Who would you like to see run such a workshop?

I've covered that already. It's so obvious you have no interest in really getting this, but want to play games. Go and read what I've written. I'll even make it easy for you: read the opening post.

Athon

[CFLarsen]

You simply don't read what isn't convenient to your argument, do you? How do you call yourself skeptical when you read so selectively?

I've said a number of times that it isn't necessary for the JREF to have its own resources to directly be involved with educational matters. It's shown its strength is in networking and seeking advice from professionals. I've suggested a number of times who I'd like to see run a workshop, or who to turn to for advice on the situation. And my suggestions are hardly exhaustive, by any means. There's a world of stuff out there. But rather than investigate, as it does with all other matters, it chooses to claim it hasn't the resources.

So, it has the resources for everything BUT getting some idea of the current state of educational research? :rolleyes:

JREF just has a different opinion than you on what education is.

You've avoided the point;

I didn't avoid the point, I pointed out that you were wrong about me not having media experience.

is it more likely the average person would have dealings with the media, or be in a situation where they can educate somebody?

In today's world, I would think that the average person is in a much better position to have dealings with the media. All that takes is a good story. If, OTOH, you want to educate, you also need to know what critical thinking is: The methods, the tools, how to use them.

So the only people who can teach others is a teacher like me?

No, I am saying that you are the one with the teaching skills. You don't need those from JREF.

No Claus. Try reading what I've said. It'll save pixels by not having to repeat it all again.

You don't want JREF to give you teaching skills? I really have misunderstood your argument, then.

Again, it's got time to have a workshop on mneumonics, but not on how to give people the skills to know how to deliver information. A question of priorities. I think matters of education are a little more important than memory tricks.

If you want a workshop at TAM, you have to be very specific about what you want. "Education" is many things to many people. "Tools" and "skills" are also pretty vague. Unless you can give concrete examples of what you want to see, I can understand why your suggestion isn't accepted.

Do you think this could be a reason?

This tiny little organisation seems large enough to pull off one of the world's biggest skeptics conferences, attracting some of the biggest names and biggest crowds, but is too small to inquire of who might be able to advise them in current educational matters? Bollocks.

This tiny little organisation can pull off the world's biggest skeptics conference only because of the help and support it gets from its members. There is no way TAM could happen if there wasn't a big group of people at JREF's disposal.

Ah, is this an informed opinion on education, or just more Claus make-believe?

Here's the thing; it's clear you wouldn't have the first clue about anything educational from the nonsense you've sprouted here. But you know, that's cool. I fully admit I don't know a lot about IT. I create web pages as part of my job, and yet still have to ask an expert's advice on all matters of html coding. Thing is, I don't have the misguided view that I know a lot about IT just because I surf the web. Yet some people feel they know all about education simply because they've had some contact with it in their life.

Fact is, from what you've shown, you don't seem to have the first clue on the subject. Nothing wrong with that. There's plenty wrong with the delusion that you do feel you know a lot on the matter.

I haven't said anything about either knowing all or a lot on the matter of education. I am offering my opinion together with my experience.

Unbelievable. Seriously. Unbelievable. Now it's a teacher's job to teach again, and nobody else's.

And yet you're the same one before who agreed that the 'what' needs the 'how' as well. So the JREF provides the 'what', but it's up to everybody else to figure the 'how' on their own. I'm aware this is the situation. I'm saying it's a shallow approach which falls short of the mark.

You teach science, right? Do you think you could teach, say, French, if you had sufficient knowledge of the language?

I've covered that already. It's so obvious you have no interest in really getting this, but want to play games. Go and read what I've written. I'll even make it easy for you: read the opening post.

Had I wanted to know which organisations, yes. But you only mention one person, but two organizations. That's a little vague, so I wanted to know who - persons - you wanted.

Who at these two organizations have you contacted? Or do you think that is up to JREF?

[athon]

JREF just has a different opinion than you on what education is.

I have no doubt of that. Yet again Mr. Larsen takes leave of his skeptical skills by forgetting that some opinions are better informed than others. I dare say from what I've observed and been told, the JREF's view of education isn't quite what those who study it and apply it see it as.

I guess, to again return to the IT analogy, if somebody has the 'John Smith Information Technology Foundation' and they claim to deal with information technology, and somebody who is an expert in the field says 'you do realise that just encouraging people to use the internet isn't really the full picture of IT', only to be told 'well, you just have a different opinion of IT'...would you take the claim seriously?

In today's world, I would think that the average person is in a much better position to have dealings with the media. All that takes is a good story. If, OTOH, you want to educate, you also need to know what critical thinking is: The methods, the tools, how to use them.

Wrong again. To be in a position to educate you don't need to know squat about critical thinking at all. In fact, it seems to be a minority of educators out there (just in the school systems!) who understand, have the resources and can implement critical thinking at all.

Far more people have ready opportunity to be able to educate others, including those in a professional situation to be able to do so.

You don't want JREF to give you teaching skills? I really have misunderstood your argument, then.

Actually, although I personally am always willing to learn more things in the field, I'd consider myself quite well informed in the field when compared with most teachers. I was responsible for the critical literacy policy in the last school I taught in. So you have misunderstood the argument.

There are a significant number of educators who attend TAM, as by the show of hands two years ago. This number wouldn't even include parents who would certainly have an investment in educational skills. That number will surely increase this time with the conference being moved to a more 'educator friendly' time slot. All these people who are key to making a difference, who have the greatest opportunities to reach young people, people who will make a huge difference in the future...and the opportunity is missed.

I'm not saying that people are getting nothing. I'm talking about taking every opportunity with smart decisions, using the resources that are out there.

If you want a workshop at TAM, you have to be very specific about what you want. "Education" is many things to many people. "Tools" and "skills" are also pretty vague. Unless you can give concrete examples of what you want to see, I can understand why your suggestion isn't accepted.

You might be correct. I'd assumed that an educational foundation was just that - a foundation who might understand the terms and jargon used by those who study education.

If the educational group I currently work for were to have their understanding of education, it would never be taken seriously by the Australian public, let alone by those in a position to make the biggest difference.

This tiny little organisation can pull off the world's biggest skeptics conference only because of the help and support it gets from its members. There is no way TAM could happen if there wasn't a big group of people at JREF's disposal.

Exactly. I'm not suggesting that the members do nothing. In fact, I've said over and over the foundation itself would not have to have the resources or experience itself to deal with the matter. Some understanding of what professional educationalists (people who research education) have to say would be good. A good idea of what critical thinking and educational groups are out there it can network with would be great. The only role of the foundation would then be to express a desire to have more to do with them.

Yet when it comes down to a group of TAM attendees begging for more on education (as I have done pretty much at every opportunity now), and there is silence on the matter (and don't give me 'they're busy' - I think four years is plenty of time to consider the idea), I can safely say they're hardly interested in investigating what is out there.

I haven't said anything about either knowing all or a lot on the matter of education. I am offering my opinion together with my experience.

Opinions are best when adequately informed.

You teach science, right? Do you think you could teach, say, French, if you had sufficient knowledge of the language?

I have no idea where that question fits in. I'll say yes to it, but I seriously can't see where that one is going.

Had I wanted to know which organisations, yes. But you only mention one person, but two organizations. That's a little vague, so I wanted to know who - persons - you wanted.

Who at these two organizations have you contacted? Or do you think that is up to JREF?


:rolleyes: What on earth does that have to do with it? You said 'Who would you like to see run such a workshop?'. Those are a few groups who I would like to see investigated further. From the feedback I've received on them, each as a body would offer workshops which are quite useful in the matter. 'Who personally?' is a ridiculous question you've thrown in just to argue. I can't see how giving you personal names on the matter would mean anything to you at all.

Athon

[CFLarsen]

I have no doubt of that. Yet again Mr. Larsen takes leave of his skeptical skills by forgetting that some opinions are better informed than others. I dare say from what I've observed and been told, the JREF's view of education isn't quite what those who study it and apply it see it as.

Maybe that is the reason why JREF isn't taking your proposals seriously: It is rarely productive to start off on the wrong foot by declaring that you are more informed about education than JREF. Maybe a little more....humility?

I guess, to again return to the IT analogy, if somebody has the 'John Smith Information Technology Foundation' and they claim to deal with information technology, and somebody who is an expert in the field says 'you do realise that just encouraging people to use the internet isn't really the full picture of IT', only to be told 'well, you just have a different opinion of IT'...would you take the claim seriously?

You are an expert in the field of education?

Wrong again. To be in a position to educate you don't need to know squat about critical thinking at all.

I thought we were talking about educating critical thinking?

In fact, it seems to be a minority of educators out there (just in the school systems!) who understand, have the resources and can implement critical thinking at all.

Far more people have ready opportunity to be able to educate others, including those in a professional situation to be able to do so.

On one hand, you say that it takes experts in education to educate, because they know what they are talking about.

On the other, you say that not just experts, or even teachers, but also far more people outside that group, can educate.

Did I get that right?

Actually, although I personally am always willing to learn more things in the field, I'd consider myself quite well informed in the field when compared with most teachers. I was responsible for the critical literacy policy in the last school I taught in. So you have misunderstood the argument.

Ah, OK: You already know what it takes, and you want other teachers to get to where you are now.

There are a significant number of educators who attend TAM, as by the show of hands two years ago. This number wouldn't even include parents who would certainly have an investment in educational skills. That number will surely increase this time with the conference being moved to a more 'educator friendly' time slot. All these people who are key to making a difference, who have the greatest opportunities to reach young people, people who will make a huge difference in the future...and the opportunity is missed.

I'm not saying that people are getting nothing. I'm talking about taking every opportunity with smart decisions, using the resources that are out there.

"Every opportunity" is a matter of opinion, regardless of how much of an expert you are on it. You will always find someone who says that some opportunities are missed. What, then? It is sufficient if JREF lives up to your demands?

You might be correct. I'd assumed that an educational foundation was just that - a foundation who might understand the terms and jargon used by those who study education.

If the educational group I currently work for were to have their understanding of education, it would never be taken seriously by the Australian public, let alone by those in a position to make the biggest difference.

But this isn't news to you. You haven't just recently found out that JREF isn't viewing education the way you are. Couldn't you have worded your proposal that wouldn't be in total opposition to what you know JREF thinks of education?

Exactly. I'm not suggesting that the members do nothing. In fact, I've said over and over the foundation itself would not have to have the resources or experience itself to deal with the matter. Some understanding of what professional educationalists (people who research education) have to say would be good. A good idea of what critical thinking and educational groups are out there it can network with would be great. The only role of the foundation would then be to express a desire to have more to do with them.

Yet when it comes down to a group of TAM attendees begging for more on education (as I have done pretty much at every opportunity now), and there is silence on the matter (and don't give me 'they're busy' - I think four years is plenty of time to consider the idea), I can safely say they're hardly interested in investigating what is out there.

They may not be interested in pursuing your idea of education - perhaps. But then, you should change direction and make your proposal more accommodating to JREF, instead of keep continuing in the same track.

Opinions are best when adequately informed.

"Adequately" is a matter of opinion. You were definitely not aware of the level of my media experience.

I have no idea where that question fits in. I'll say yes to it, but I seriously can't see where that one is going.

Here's where it's going: If teachers can teach different subjects by getting information about the subject, then what do you need JREF to teach teachers how to educate the way you want? All they need is the information - and they sure get that at TAM.

So what you are asking for is perhaps not even necessary.

:rolleyes: What on earth does that have to do with it? You said 'Who would you like to see run such a workshop?'. Those are a few groups who I would like to see investigated further. From the feedback I've received on them, each as a body would offer workshops which are quite useful in the matter. 'Who personally?' is a ridiculous question you've thrown in just to argue. I can't see how giving you personal names on the matter would mean anything to you at all.

This is what I was talking about earlier: You don't present JREF with a very detailed proposal for a workshop, but keep it more or less in general terms, e.g., by naming which organizations you would like to see.

Instead, contact the organizations and get confirmation from specific people on what exactly they would like to do. A detailed proposal is far easier to evaluate than one that is kept in more or less general terms.

[athon]

Maybe that is the reason why JREF isn't taking your proposals seriously: It is rarely productive to start off on the wrong foot by declaring that you are more informed about education than JREF. Maybe a little more....humility?

Who's to say this I 'started off' by explaining I was 'better informed'? Try this; I politely inquire as to where the JREF plan on going with educators in the future. Randi's personal response? A reservation to have much to do with schools, as it's a bit of a risky field litigation wise. Hal's response? Fully in agreement and total support of it. Jeff's response? Hard to pin down over the conversations I've had.

Over time, as I get more information on their view of education as it contrasts against what I deal with every day, I get more of a view that our views indeed don't match completely.

This doesn't boil down to a mere matter of opinion on what is effective. I'm up with current pedagogies and educational methods enough to know the debates, and see where the research fits in. If they just had a slightly different stance, I'd be more than fine with that. But to equate education with just putting the information up there, and not being informed on current educational research and expert opinion, smacks of willful ignorance.

And I find it incredible that you, with your method of discussion and debate, showing such arrogance, would find it appropriate to lecture on 'humility'. My irony metre just exploded.

You are an expert in the field of education?

With respect to who? Have I more expertise than the average person? Yes. Somebody with a PhD in education? Probably not.

I thought we were talking about educating critical thinking?

Once again, we're talking about people who have access to opportunities to teach. You simply don't read what is plainly in front of you.

On one hand, you say that it takes experts in education to educate, because they know what they are talking about.

On the other, you say that not just experts, or even teachers, but also far more people outside that group, can educate.

*sigh* I'm not sure how to make this simpler for you.

Many people have the opportunity to teach. Many of those are indeed trained educators. Of those, a small percentage have skills in teaching critical thinking, or are up on current research on such methods. They lack resources, tools or even just basic skills. Largely, many teachers have little interest in knowing how, however considering that those attending TAM obviously have an interest they're not of immediate concern where workshops and the like are being discussed.

It doesn't take 'experts' to teach. It takes people with the opportunity to change another's way of thinking. And to do it well, they need the skills and resources.

Ah, OK: You already know what it takes, and you want other teachers to get to where you are now.

I have a good start; more than a lot of people. That's not saying I'm incapable of learning more.

"Every opportunity" is a matter of opinion, regardless of how much of an expert you are on it. You will always find someone who says that some opportunities are missed. What, then? It is sufficient if JREF lives up to your demands?

Of course this is just my opinion. The JREF are completely free to ignore everything I've said. I could be completely wrong. However, again in my opinion, it would carry more weight if they made such a judgement based on good information rather than a very colloquial understanding of what education is.

Skepticism is about making informed opinions. I've seen no evidence of an informed opinion being made. It could be there, true. In which case a simple 'we hear what you're saying, yet in our opinion based on 'X' we feel that simply providing information and inspiration is as effective as providing workshops or talks covering education' would be at least some form of response. I might disagree, but it would be a comparison of research then, and not just 'well it's our opinion'.

But this isn't news to you. You haven't just recently found out that JREF isn't viewing education the way you are. Couldn't you have worded your proposal that wouldn't be in total opposition to what you know JREF thinks of education?

To be perfectly frank, it has taken quite some time for the contrast to fully sink in. I'm used to dealing with organisations and groups who have some understanding of education as being much, much more than just informing people with content. From earlier discussions I've had with people in the JREF, I'd never met with blunt contrasting definitions, nor been told until recently that my definition was so completely alien to their understanding.

To then act as if it is just one interpretation of education is a bit like saying to a marketer that marketing by ringing a bell while walking down the street saying 'hear ye, hear ye' is as good a form of marketing as any. Such a marketing company who felt they were professionally up to scratch by doing that wouldn't be taken seriously by other marketing companies.

Sure, it's their opinion, but in the world of marketing not a very well informed one.

"Adequately" is a matter of opinion. You were definitely not aware of the level of my media experience.

Based on your views, whatever experience you've had doesn't seem to have informed you on the real world, especially if you still seem to think that it's more common for people to be in the media than it is for people to be educators.

Here's where it's going: If teachers can teach different subjects by getting information about the subject, then what do you need JREF to teach teachers how to educate the way you want? All they need is the information - and they sure get that at TAM.

And again, the sound of wind as Claus misses the whole point. Could I teach French if I had the skills to speak French? Sure. Could I teach woodwork if I had the skills to make stuff out of wood? Yup. Could I teach critical thinking if I had the skills to get people to think critically? You bet.

Teaching is much more than information. Critical thinking is not content, although having good content resources helps. It is a skill. And it takes more than the right information to change philosophies.

But, like the JREF, and much of the population, you feel that information is the bulk of education. Give people the information and they'll have learned, so long as there is a teacher in front of the class teaching it. Yet the teacher needs to have the understanding of how to accomplish this. Some do it well. Many don't.

This is what I was talking about earlier: You don't present JREF with a very detailed proposal for a workshop, but keep it more or less in general terms, e.g., by naming which organizations you would like to see.

Instead, contact the organizations and get confirmation from specific people on what exactly they would like to do. A detailed proposal is far easier to evaluate than one that is kept in more or less general terms.

So you know of the correspondance between the JREF and me? Wow. I never knew you were such an insider.

Athon

[Mercutio]

Here's where it's going: If teachers can teach different subjects by getting information about the subject, then what do you need JREF to teach teachers how to educate the way you want? All they need is the information - and they sure get that at TAM.

Um... Claus. You asked whether one particular teacher--in this case, Athon, who has had training and experience in teaching, would be able to teach a different subject if he had sufficient grasp of the topic. Yes? You have not asked someone who has not had this training and experience. You concluded that the topical information alone is sufficient; it is certainly necessary, but your question does not allow you to conclude that it is sufficient. You generalized your conclusion to those without Athon's training and experience.

Ever wonder how much training in teaching is given to most college/university teachers in the US? Little to none. I am, technically, qualified to teach just about any course at my university, because of my Ph. D. in one subject. I have been asked to teach courses outside my field, in fact. Like Athon, I would be able to teach it if I had that specific domain knowledge--but like Athon, that is because (unlike most graduate programs in my field) our grad program values teaching enough to actually spend time and money employing expert teachers to teach grad students how to teach! As it was, I turned down the offer--I did not have the domain-specific knowledge. I can just about guarantee, though, that the person who taught it may have had the domain-specific knowledge, but did not have any training in teaching. Athon, however, does. You asked a good question, but you drew an improper conclusion.

You, Claus, do not have training in teaching. This is a guess, of course--I do not know what your education has consisted of. I base my guess on your expressed opinions here, which show an astonishing ratio of ignorance (about this topic) to arrogance.

When Randi runs into a claim where his impressive knowledge runs a bit short, he has experts to fall back on; a claim on some arcane topic will not stop him, because he knows when to ask for help. Who are the education experts? Do you know? I admit my own ignorance here. Are there education experts? Randi can call on the top names in just about any field of science, I would imagine (I could be wrong, but it would surprise me). Who are the education experts? Do you know, Claus?

[seismic_cowgirl]

Mercutio, I bow at your elegant post... as much as we know it will be lost on the person at which it is intended to.

(makes a graceful bow at Mercutio).

Can we stay on topic and focus on finding out who is interested in attending a TAM Educator's Workshop?

[athon]

I agree - both with Merc's excellent clarification and SC's reminder to not derail.

I think I've said my piece.

Athon

[Mercutio]

You are quite right, and quite diplomatic at that, SC. Since I will be out of the country during TAM, this will be my last post on the matter. My sincere apologies for the minor derail.

[CFLarsen]

Who's to say this I 'started off' by explaining I was 'better informed'? Try this; I politely inquire as to where the JREF plan on going with educators in the future. Randi's personal response? A reservation to have much to do with schools, as it's a bit of a risky field litigation wise. Hal's response? Fully in agreement and total support of it. Jeff's response? Hard to pin down over the conversations I've had.

Over time, as I get more information on their view of education as it contrasts against what I deal with every day, I get more of a view that our views indeed don't match completely.

This doesn't boil down to a mere matter of opinion on what is effective. I'm up with current pedagogies and educational methods enough to know the debates, and see where the research fits in. If they just had a slightly different stance, I'd be more than fine with that. But to equate education with just putting the information up there, and not being informed on current educational research and expert opinion, smacks of willful ignorance.

Given JREF's propensity to seek expert assistance, I find that very hard to believe. Randi even consults outside sources when it comes to his own fields of expertise.

With respect to who? Have I more expertise than the average person? Yes. Somebody with a PhD in education? Probably not.

Then, you should persuade those PhDs to run the workshop. That would be much more persuasive. But you have to do the legwork yourself, you shouldn't just leave it to JREF.

Once again, we're talking about people who have access to opportunities to teach. You simply don't read what is plainly in front of you.

And here I was, thinking this discussion was about how to get teachers to get skills on critical thinking.

*sigh* I'm not sure how to make this simpler for you.

Many people have the opportunity to teach. Many of those are indeed trained educators. Of those, a small percentage have skills in teaching critical thinking, or are up on current research on such methods. They lack resources, tools or even just basic skills. Largely, many teachers have little interest in knowing how, however considering that those attending TAM obviously have an interest they're not of immediate concern where workshops and the like are being discussed.

It doesn't take 'experts' to teach. It takes people with the opportunity to change another's way of thinking. And to do it well, they need the skills and resources.

Resources they get from JREF, and a lot of other organizations and people. Teaching skills as such is not JREF's area.

Of course this is just my opinion. The JREF are completely free to ignore everything I've said. I could be completely wrong. However, again in my opinion, it would carry more weight if they made such a judgement based on good information rather than a very colloquial understanding of what education is.

Skepticism is about making informed opinions. I've seen no evidence of an informed opinion being made. It could be there, true. In which case a simple 'we hear what you're saying, yet in our opinion based on 'X' we feel that simply providing information and inspiration is as effective as providing workshops or talks covering education' would be at least some form of response. I might disagree, but it would be a comparison of research then, and not just 'well it's our opinion'.

But that's exactly what you got: A pretty clear message that your opinions differ.

To be perfectly frank, it has taken quite some time for the contrast to fully sink in. I'm used to dealing with organisations and groups who have some understanding of education as being much, much more than just informing people with content. From earlier discussions I've had with people in the JREF, I'd never met with blunt contrasting definitions, nor been told until recently that my definition was so completely alien to their understanding.

To then act as if it is just one interpretation of education is a bit like saying to a marketer that marketing by ringing a bell while walking down the street saying 'hear ye, hear ye' is as good a form of marketing as any. Such a marketing company who felt they were professionally up to scratch by doing that wouldn't be taken seriously by other marketing companies.

Sure, it's their opinion, but in the world of marketing not a very well informed one.

If you are not met with an all-favorable response, why not work on a compromise? Find some common ground and take it from there.

Sure, you're convinced that you are right, and that JREF is wrong. But I don't see a lot of will from you to work with what you can get. Your approach seem very uncompromising: It's your way, or you take your ball and go home. That's rarely a good idea.

Based on your views, whatever experience you've had doesn't seem to have informed you on the real world, especially if you still seem to think that it's more common for people to be in the media than it is for people to be educators.

That's not what I said. I said that it is easy for people to get access to the media, once they know how to do it. Good stories and good storytellers.

And again, the sound of wind as Claus misses the whole point. Could I teach French if I had the skills to speak French? Sure. Could I teach woodwork if I had the skills to make stuff out of wood? Yup. Could I teach critical thinking if I had the skills to get people to think critically? You bet.

Teaching is much more than information. Critical thinking is not content, although having good content resources helps. It is a skill. And it takes more than the right information to change philosophies.

But, like the JREF, and much of the population, you feel that information is the bulk of education. Give people the information and they'll have learned, so long as there is a teacher in front of the class teaching it. Yet the teacher needs to have the understanding of how to accomplish this. Some do it well. Many don't.

No, I think - and I seem to be in agreement with JREF here - that information is the basis for education. If teachers lack teaching skills, that's really bad. But that is a problem with teaching in general, differing from country to country.

So you know of the correspondance between the JREF and me? Wow. I never knew you were such an insider.

I'm going with what you have said in this thread and others. According to that, you haven't been particularly specific.

If you want to change JREF's idea of education, maybe you should first consider where JREF comes from. Don't take your ball and go home, just because they won't do what you want them to do. Find compromises, see how far JREF is willing to follow you, and take it from there.

You can't eat the whole cake in one bite.

Um... Claus. You asked whether one particular teacher--in this case, Athon, who has had training and experience in teaching, would be able to teach a different subject if he had sufficient grasp of the topic. Yes? You have not asked someone who has not had this training and experience. You concluded that the topical information alone is sufficient; it is certainly necessary, but your question does not allow you to conclude that it is sufficient. You generalized your conclusion to those without Athon's training and experience.

Ever wonder how much training in teaching is given to most college/university teachers in the US? Little to none. I am, technically, qualified to teach just about any course at my university, because of my Ph. D. in one subject. I have been asked to teach courses outside my field, in fact. Like Athon, I would be able to teach it if I had that specific domain knowledge--but like Athon, that is because (unlike most graduate programs in my field) our grad program values teaching enough to actually spend time and money employing expert teachers to teach grad students how to teach! As it was, I turned down the offer--I did not have the domain-specific knowledge. I can just about guarantee, though, that the person who taught it may have had the domain-specific knowledge, but did not have any training in teaching. Athon, however, does. You asked a good question, but you drew an improper conclusion.

Sure, not all teachers are good at teaching. But I fail to see why teachers should go to JREF to learn their own trade. I don't see why it has to be JREF's responsibility to teach the world's teachers to teach. JREF can - and is - available to anyone who wants to learn more about the various subjects. Do we wish JREF could do more? Of course. But we also have to be realistic.

And, again, I don't think it would be a good idea anyway to have one skeptical organization teach the world's teachers how to teach. Especially not on an issue like critical thinking which requires you to do your thinking yourself. JREF can't do it for you.

You, Claus, do not have training in teaching. This is a guess, of course--I do not know what your education has consisted of. I base my guess on your expressed opinions here, which show an astonishing ratio of ignorance (about this topic) to arrogance.

I am not claiming to be an expert on education.

When Randi runs into a claim where his impressive knowledge runs a bit short, he has experts to fall back on; a claim on some arcane topic will not stop him, because he knows when to ask for help. Who are the education experts? Do you know? I admit my own ignorance here. Are there education experts? Randi can call on the top names in just about any field of science, I would imagine (I could be wrong, but it would surprise me). Who are the education experts? Do you know, Claus?

It doesn't matter if I do. I would, however, find it really odd if JREF on this particular issue would not seek outside expert help. Very uncharacteristic.

[athon]

It doesn't matter if I do. I would, however, find it really odd if JREF on this particular issue would not seek outside expert help. Very uncharacteristic.


Since my responses to the rest of the your points can be surmised easily (and you seem to be the only one having problems understanding my points), and I am resisting continuing to derail my own thread here, I'll only say as much as to agree with this one point. It is indeed strange how silent the JREF is on this matter; over the years it is one question that nobody has been able to give an affirmative answer on. The best I've been able to surmise from what I've been told is that they don't see the need for pedagogical advice of any sort, but until now I had hoped I'd just misunderstood. Now it is fairly clear that they don't see it as a necessity.

Athon

[Mercutio]

...I fail to see why teachers should go to JREF to learn their own trade. I don't see why it has to be JREF's responsibility to teach the world's teachers to teach.
...

As it currently stands, teachers should not go to JREF to learn their own trade. And it certainly is not the JREF's responsibility to teach them to teach. But frankly, that is an improper framing of the issue. To keep on the thread's topic, the real question ought to be: Is an educators workshop consistent with, and a means by which to advance, the goals and aims of JREF? Here I think the answer is an unqualified YES.

The Foundation's goals include:

Creating a new generation of critical thinkers through lively classroom demonstrations and by reaching out to the next generation in the form of scholarships and awards.
Demonstrating to the public and the media, through educational seminars, the consequences of accepting paranormal and supernatural claims without questioning.
Supporting and conducting research into paranormal claims through well-designed experiments utilizing "the scientific method" and by publishing the findings in the JREF official newsletter, Swift, and other periodicals. Also providing reliable information on paranormal and pseudoscientific claims by maintaining a comprehensive library of books, videos, journals, and archival resources open to the public.
Assisting those who are being attacked as a result of their investigations and criticism of people who make paranormal claims, by maintaining a legal defense fund available to assist these individuals.source (http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/50/40/).
The first two goals, at least, are dependent not only on the domain-specific material, but on how it is presented. There are better and worse ways of presenting the material. Here, for instance (http://books.google.com/books?id=nDANWuylaBsC&pg=PA225&lpg=PA225&dq=benassi+goldstein&source=web&ots=In7ERqZ8Cs&sig=LFP2Bgi82ps4683u860DUd0l-Mk#PPA225,M1), is a chapter on teaching about paranormal claims in a college-level introductory psych class. The first author, Victor Benassi, would be a fantastic educational resource for the JREF (he is an expert teacher and an expert in teaching teachers to teach; that is his specialty area), at least with regard to college/university level teaching. I am certain that there are well-qualified individuals at all levels.

In agriculture, it is not merely a matter of what seeds you put in the dirt. Depending on the landscape and climate, there are better and worse planting methods, better and worse times to plant, better and worse ways to thin, or prune, or weed, or fertilize... In education, having the information is only part of the solution. It is absolutely consistent with JREF's first two goals for us to be concerned not merely with information but with delivery.

So, Claus, the question is not whether teachers should be looking to JREF for help. The question is whether JREF is doing what it ought to be doing to achieve its own goals. In my humble and personal and correct opinion, it is absolutely in JREF's best interest to invest some of their time and energy into not just the information, but the means by which that information is disseminated. Not for the sake of the teachers--although they would benefit tremendously. But for the sake of achieving their stated goals.

[CFLarsen]

Since my responses to the rest of the your points can be surmised easily (and you seem to be the only one having problems understanding my points), and I am resisting continuing to derail my own thread here, I'll only say as much as to agree with this one point. It is indeed strange how silent the JREF is on this matter; over the years it is one question that nobody has been able to give an affirmative answer on. The best I've been able to surmise from what I've been told is that they don't see the need for pedagogical advice of any sort, but until now I had hoped I'd just misunderstood. Now it is fairly clear that they don't see it as a necessity.

Now you are edging towards ConspiracyLand.

As it currently stands, teachers should not go to JREF to learn their own trade. And it certainly is not the JREF's responsibility to teach them to teach. But frankly, that is an improper framing of the issue. To keep on the thread's topic, the real question ought to be: Is an educators workshop consistent with, and a means by which to advance, the goals and aims of JREF? Here I think the answer is an unqualified YES.

Not improper at all: It's the issue we have been discussing here: Whether or not JEF should provide teachers with the skills to teach.

source (http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/50/40/).
The first two goals, at least, are dependent not only on the domain-specific material, but on how it is presented. There are better and worse ways of presenting the material. Here, for instance (http://books.google.com/books?id=nDANWuylaBsC&pg=PA225&lpg=PA225&dq=benassi+goldstein&source=web&ots=In7ERqZ8Cs&sig=LFP2Bgi82ps4683u860DUd0l-Mk#PPA225,M1), is a chapter on teaching about paranormal claims in a college-level introductory psych class. The first author, Victor Benassi, would be a fantastic educational resource for the JREF (he is an expert teacher and an expert in teaching teachers to teach; that is his specialty area), at least with regard to college/university level teaching. I am certain that there are well-qualified individuals at all levels.

In agriculture, it is not merely a matter of what seeds you put in the dirt. Depending on the landscape and climate, there are better and worse planting methods, better and worse times to plant, better and worse ways to thin, or prune, or weed, or fertilize... In education, having the information is only part of the solution. It is absolutely consistent with JREF's first two goals for us to be concerned not merely with information but with delivery.

So, Claus, the question is not whether teachers should be looking to JREF for help. The question is whether JREF is doing what it ought to be doing to achieve its own goals. In my humble and personal and correct opinion, it is absolutely in JREF's best interest to invest some of their time and energy into not just the information, but the means by which that information is disseminated. Not for the sake of the teachers--although they would benefit tremendously. But for the sake of achieving their stated goals.

And JREF already does that - although not to everyone's satisfaction. Which, of course, can never be achieved.

[Mercutio]

And JREF already does that

Evidence?


Up to now, you have been saying that it is JREF's job merely to provide the domain-specific information. Now you say that JREF also does educate on the means by which to deliver said information. Given the tenor of the thread, I think you ought to provide evidence for this latest assertion. After all, perhaps Athon, despite his searching, and I are simply wrong, and the JREF does plenty that we were simply unaware of. Perhaps the thread should not be asking whether there should be an educators workshop, but rather which of JREF's past education workshops/presentations we would like to see, or to see expanded on.

[CFLarsen]

Evidence?


Up to now, you have been saying that it is JREF's job merely to provide the domain-specific information. Now you say that JREF also does educate on the means by which to deliver said information. Given the tenor of the thread, I think you ought to provide evidence for this latest assertion. After all, perhaps Athon, despite his searching, and I are simply wrong, and the JREF does plenty that we were simply unaware of. Perhaps the thread should not be asking whether there should be an educators workshop, but rather which of JREF's past education workshops/presentations we would like to see, or to see expanded on.

"Does that" = "The question is whether JREF is doing what it ought to be doing to achieve its own goals."

[Mercutio]

"Does that" = "The question is whether JREF is doing what it ought to be doing to achieve its own goals."

Ah. Ok. Sorry, I misunderstood. You are only making the far weaker claim. Grammatically, the referent for "that" would have been "invest some of their time and energy into not just the information, but the means by which that information is disseminated." You are not, however, making that claim.

I nearly agree with you, then. They do do what they ought to be doing, if not to everyone's satisfaction. I would phrase it differently, though--they are doing some of what they ought to be doing. What Athon is suggesting is absolutely consistent with JREF's stated goals and is supported by empirical evidence of its efficacy. You appear to have faith that all that needs to be done is already being done. We disagree.

[athon]

Now you are edging towards ConspiracyLand.

Really? I don't see any conspiracy; in fact what I said was quite logical. Either the JREF has advisors on matters of education or not. If not, then obviously they don't see it as necessary. If they saw it as necessary, then they would have them. Not exactly rocket surgery to figure that one out.

Not improper at all: It's the issue we have been discussing here: Whether or not JEF should provide teachers with the skills to teach.Sorry, Claus. I'm never really sure whether you intentionally twist what's being said, or whether it's a natural quirk of your brain.

The JREF's goals, as Mercutio has pointed out, include 'Creating a new generation of critical thinkers through lively classroom demonstrations and by reaching out to the next generation in the form of scholarships and awards'.

In all honesty, while 'lively demonstrations' are useful, on their own they're not much more than flashy stunts. You say we're talking about 'giving teachers the skills to teach', leaving off (either intentionally or again because your brain just works that way) 'critical thinking'. Teachers do indeed have teaching experience and training. But critical thinking as an emphasised skill is relatively new in Australia's curricula, and from what I understand is not emphasised much at all in most US states. In the English national curriculum, it is present in the documents (in effect, if not by those words) but teachers are not given the understanding or the tools to teach it at all. I can't comment on other countries such as Canada, New Zealand or others in the UK, but from what little I do understand they are similar to Australia in that regard.

So, the JREF should not teach teachers to teach. In order to make their first goal effective, however, it needs to be accompanied by a focus on educators and facilitating them with the means to not only have good content but effective skills in critical thinking.

We both agree that the JREF feel that what they are doing is effective in achieving that goal. I'd like to know on what evaluation do they assume this, and according to what pedagogical advice do they feel their efforts are as effective as possible given their resources?

Athon