Teaching a Lie

[Piscivore]

Teachers by law, and oath, cannot knowingly teach children a falsehood. We already have those types of rules in place in our society.

I've never heard of anything like this, and Google fails to turn up anything. Is this correct?

[Cainkane1]

quyak is wrong. untruths are taught in many schools.

[The True Scotsman]

quyak is wrong. untruths are taught in many schools.

Well, regardless of whether quyak is wrong or not, his statement did not say teacher can't teach untruths, but rather that they can't knowingly teach untruths.

[Jeff Corey]

I never heard of such an oath or law and I think I should know.

[MattTheTubaGuy]

physicists sort of teach untruths (it's actually more like not quite the whole truths) but that is because teaching the whole truth would be too difficult to understand. examples: Centrifugal Force is usually taught as not being a true force, but it is a force in a non inertial (rotating) frame. another one (which is used in university as well, but the reasoning is actually explained there) is using the approximation of sin(x) = approximately x for small x (angle).

[Miss_Kitt]

There is no such law that I am aware of in any of the 50 US states or the territories. This sounds like twaddle to me. If quyak thinks there is such a thing, he/she should cite an example!

[Professor Yaffle]

Mr Yaffle tells all his classes that he has a brass hand.

[Safe-Keeper]

A better thread topic would be: should teachers be able to knowingly tell untruths? More controversial, should private schools be allowed to set up curricula (grammar?) that tell teachers to teach untruths, such as that the Theory of Evolution is not true?

[marplots]

What is usually referred to as a 'teachers' oath' has to do with loyalty to the US constitution. It is a common practice.

Here is an example: http://www.ndsu.edu/policy/324.htm

I don't know about lying, although a lot of institutions have a sort of teachers' creed similar to the Hippocratic Oath. As far as I know these don't have the force of law though.

[Prometheus]

I wonder how common that is. I've never seen anything like it any of the places I've taught.

[Loss Leader]

Some states may require teachers to sign some sort of pledge in order to receive their certificates. To my knowledge, these pledges have neither force nor effect. They have no legal weight.

AFAIK, my state has no such pledge.

[gerg]

untruths are taught in many schools. Yes such as "Pearl harbour was a surprise attack in that those in a position of power to defend Pearl Harbour were not aware of the Japanese approaching" Also we're taught lies or not the full story about Vietnam and Cuba.

[KoihimeNakamura]

CT ->

[Resume]

CT ->

So it would seem.

[Gilmar]

Terry Pratchett & co-authors came up with the somewhat-useful Lie-to-children concept in The Science Of Discworld.

"A lie-to-children is a statement that is false, but which nevertheless leads the child's mind towards a more accurate explanation, one that the child will only be able to appreciate if it has been primed with the lie".

[Madalch]

I wonder how common that is. I've never seen anything like it any of the places I've taught.
Neither have I.

[Jeff Corey]

I wonder how common that is. I've never seen anything like it any of the places I've taught.

Me neither. In any case, it does not support the OP. Nothing does, so far.

[Cactus]

As far as I understand it, teachers teach according to a curriculum decided both by politicians and business, in which such a curriculum is going to be factually true in almost every circumstance, as knowing "false" facts really isn't any benefit to the students. Thus a teacher that doesn't teach this curriculum as true is going to end up with a class of failed students and thus probably won't stay a teacher for much longer.

If we are talking about the teacher teaching things which the teacher believes is untrue (such as a creationist having to teach evolution), then the teacher will have to teach such a "falsehood" in order to keep his/her job.

If we are talking about questionable subjects, such as religion, it shouldn't be up to the teacher anyway to "teach" which is the right religious belief.

If we are talking about the different stages of teaching sciences, then it also acceptable to teach falsehoods, as these are going to be corrected by the time the entire education system has finished.

If we are talking about problems with a curriculum, such as all the issues to remove/slander the Soviet Union in McCarthy era education, then the teacher will still have to teach these falsehoods, again for the sake of their job.

I cannot see anyway you could have some sort of educational equivalent of the Hippocratic oath, or even, to an extent, the point of such a thing.

[drkitten]

As far as I understand it, teachers teach according to a curriculum decided both by politicians and business, in which such a curriculum is going to be factually true in almost every circumstance, as knowing "false" facts really isn't any benefit to the students. Thus a teacher that doesn't teach this curriculum as true is going to end up with a class of failed students and thus probably won't stay a teacher for much longer.

If we are talking about the teacher teaching things which the teacher believes is untrue (such as a creationist having to teach evolution), then the teacher will have to teach such a "falsehood" in order to keep his/her job.

If we are talking about questionable subjects, such as religion, it shouldn't be up to the teacher anyway to "teach" which is the right religious belief.

If we are talking about the different stages of teaching sciences, then it also acceptable to teach falsehoods, as these are going to be corrected by the time the entire education system has finished.

If we are talking about problems with a curriculum, such as all the issues to remove/slander the Soviet Union in McCarthy era education, then the teacher will still have to teach these falsehoods, again for the sake of their job.

I cannot see anyway you could have some sort of educational equivalent of the Hippocratic oath, or even, to an extent, the point of such a thing.

Well, this is one of the points that came up in the Dover Pandas trial (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/pf2.html#p317); what was demanded of the teachers was held (by the teachers) to violate their professional ethics:

# 249. On January 6, 2005, the teachers sent a memo to the Board by which they requested the Board release them from any obligation to read the statement. 36:97 (Linker). The memo states the teachers belief that "reading the statement violates our responsibilities as professional educators as set forth in the Code of Professional Practice." 36:97 The teachers' memo also states that "Central to teaching act and our ethical obligation is the solemn responsibility to teach the truth . . . the public educator may not knowingly and intentionally misrepresent subject matter and curriculum." 36:98. The memo concludes with the statement "To refer the students to Of Pandas and People, as if it is a scientific resource, breaches my ethical obligation to provide them with scientific knowledge that that is supported by recognized proof or theory." P121.

# 250. The defendants read the statement to ninth graders at Dover high school in January 2005. 35:43 (Baksa). The teachers requested not to read the statement because it violated their professional ethics. 25:56-57 (Nilsen); P121.

The relevant "Code of Professional Practice" is PA Code CHAPTER 235. CODE OF PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE AND CONDUCT FOR EDUCATORS, specifically section 235.10 which states that

§ 235.10. Relationships with students.

The professional educator may not:

(1) Knowingly and intentionally distort or misrepresent evaluations of students.

(2) Knowingly and intentionally misrepresent subject matter or curriculum.

(3) Sexually harass or engage in sexual relationships with students.

(4) Knowingly and intentionally withhold evidence from the proper authorities about violations of the legal obligations as defined within this section.

Section 235.5 holds that "violation of § § 235.6—235.11 may constitute an independent basis for private or public reprimand, and may be used as supporting evidence in cases of certification suspension and revocation."

So, yes, Pennsylvania, at least, has a law against teaching lies.

[Andrew Wiggin]

A goodly chunk of the public school curriculum is either not strictly true, or not the entire truth. One of the reasons I didn't graduate from college the first time around with an education degree, by the way.

A

[drkitten]

A goodly chunk of the public school curriculum is either not strictly true, or not the entire truth.

That's true of any curriculum and has nothing to do with public schools; if you think that medical school teaches you "the entire truth," why do we still fund medical research?

[Cactus]

Well, this is one of the points that came up in the Dover Pandas trial; what was demanded of the teachers was held (by the teachers) to violate their professional ethics:

...

So, yes, Pennsylvania, at least, has a law against teaching lies.

It has a law against misrepresenting the curriculum, which is what I thought I was talking about, sorry if I wrote it in a strange way.

When I said no sort of oath, I was talking about a global oath, the same way (AFAIK) all practitioners of western medicine have to swear it, regardless of what they practice. Due to the differences in what societies believe it makes it very hard to do something like this.

[Piscivore]

Well, this is one of the points that came up in the Dover Pandas trial (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/pf2.html#p317); what was demanded of the teachers was held (by the teachers) to violate their professional ethics:



The relevant "Code of Professional Practice" is PA Code CHAPTER 235. CODE OF PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE AND CONDUCT FOR EDUCATORS, specifically section 235.10 which states that



Section 235.5 holds that "violation of § § 235.6—235.11 may constitute an independent basis for private or public reprimand, and may be used as supporting evidence in cases of certification suspension and revocation."

So, yes, Pennsylvania, at least, has a law against teaching lies.

I can't find anything like that in ours: http://www.azleg.gov/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=15

[maddog]

Teaching a lie? I teach Statistics, for crying out loud!!!

[Piscivore]

Teaching a lie? I teach Statistics, for crying out loud!!!



:)

[drkitten]

It has a law against misrepresenting the curriculum, which is what I thought I was talking about, sorry if I wrote it in a strange way.

It's a little stronger than that; it's also a law against misrepresenting the subject matter, which gives the teachers a certain amount of protection against being demanded (by the authors of the curriculum) to teach a flawed curriculum.

This came up in Dover,... the teachers refused to read the statement about creationism, on the grounds that it would have misrepresented biology. If similar laws existed in Texas, a teacher or group of teachers could refuse to teach the more egregious parts of the new social studies curriculum on the grounds that they misrepresent history, economics, whatever.

[Cactus]

Ah okay then.

Also I take it this is a state law only?

I'm not American so apologies for not understanding this.

[Dancing David]

Don't worry cactus, it is confusing, federal, states, counties, townships, cities all can pass laws and ordanances.

[TheDoLittle]

Teaching a lie? I teach Statistics, for crying out loud!!!

Soooo.... Damned Lies?

[dasmiller]

Teaching a lie? I teach Statistics, for crying out loud!!!

I'm not seeing the problem. As I understand it, statistical methods are techniques for generating and defending lies, but are not lies by themselves.

(also, they may have other uses)

[Andrew Wiggin]

That's true of any curriculum and has nothing to do with public schools; if you think that medical school teaches you "the entire truth," why do we still fund medical research?

I make a distinction between a curriculum put together by those who know that science disagrees with them but choose to push their beliefs rather than facts, and a curriculum put together by those who set out to teach the state of the art, and recognize that the state of the art will and should advance.

There's plenty of research still to be done in medicine, but that in no way excuses the way people deliberately distort what's taught to students to fit their beliefs, in the face of conflicting facts. I'd feel the same way if any of my teachers had pushed the theory of humors as an explanation for disease, and justified it by some biblical quote or other. I would have filed a complaint, on the grounds that they were teaching a known lie, and the fact that it was believed in the past would be no excuse.

A

[Prometheus]

I make a distinction between a curriculum put together by those who know that science disagrees with them but choose to push their beliefs rather than facts, and a curriculum put together by those who set out to teach the state of the art, and recognize that the state of the art will and should advance.

There's plenty of research still to be done in medicine, but that in no way excuses the way people deliberately distort what's taught to students to fit their beliefs, in the face of conflicting facts. I'd feel the same way if any of my teachers had pushed the theory of humors as an explanation for disease, and justified it by some biblical quote or other. I would have filed a complaint, on the grounds that they were teaching a known lie, and the fact that it was believed in the past would be no excuse.

A

Could you be more specific, please? Which public school curriculum are you talking about, and what are the untruths or partial truths that it includes?

[shadron]

I'm not seeing the problem. As I understand it, statistical methods are techniques for generating and defending lies, but are not lies by themselves.

(also, they may have other uses)

The reference is to Sam Clemmons' remark: "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics," referring to levels of misdirection. (He attributed it to Disraeli.)

[Andrew Wiggin]

Could you be more specific, please? Which public school curriculum are you talking about, and what are the untruths or partial truths that it includes?

Just as an example, I could mention the new public school curriculum Texas is pushing, which has some distorted science and fake history, to better fit with the view they want to push, namely that the earth was created by a deity in the recent past, and the united states is a nation founded by fundamentalist christians, and as such should be governed by theological, not secular principles. For a biology teacher who graduated from an actual college rather than one of the religious universities that seem to be cropping up lately, and is aware of the overwhelming evidence that the earth was NOT created 6000 some years ago by divine intervention, or a history teacher who actually studied history and is aware of the writings of the founding fathers and the reasons they gave for NOT creating an official state religion, teaching such a curriculum as true would require blatant lying to students.

A

[Andrew Wiggin]

Teaching a lie? I teach Statistics, for crying out loud!!!

While I'm aware of the perception of statistics as a tool of liars and politicians, from a scientific perspective I consider them a tool for prying non-obvious truths out of data sets in an imperfect world where data seldom forms nice straight lines.

A

[Prometheus]

Just as an example, I could mention the new public school curriculum Texas is pushing, which has some distorted science and fake history, to better fit with the view they want to push, namely that the earth was created by a deity in the recent past, and the united states is a nation founded by fundamentalist christians, and as such should be governed by theological, not secular principles. For a biology teacher who graduated from an actual college rather than one of the religious universities that seem to be cropping up lately, and is aware of the overwhelming evidence that the earth was NOT created 6000 some years ago by divine intervention or a history teacher who actually studied history and is aware of the writings of the founding fathers and the reasons they gave for NOT creating an official state religion, teaching such a curriculum as true would require blatant lying to students.

A

Are you sure that this is an accurate assessment? Who are "they"? All of Texas? Or particular agencies/officers?
Of course I'm aware of ongoing attempts by religious groups to push their agendas, but I have not heard that any of their attempts have met with any great success.

Here is a PDF (http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/teks/science/SciTEKS_9_12_Comparepdf.pdf) documenting all currently proposed changes to the Texas Essential Knowlege and Skills curriculum for science. I don't see anything like the highlighted statements anywhere in them. Did I miss something?

This page (http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter113/index.html) has links to all the documents concerning the Texas Essential Knowlege and Skills curriculum for Social Studies. There are hundreds of pages in here, and I don't have time to read them thoroughly, so perhaps some of what you describe is in there. I just did a few keyword searches through the PDF's for each grade level at the bottom of the page, though, and I don't see anything particularly worrisome.

I don't see any proposed changes announced on their main Social Studies page (http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/curriculum/social/index.html), either.

Do you have any specific examples of actual lies contained somewhere in any of that state's curriculum documents?

[drkitten]

I make a distinction between a curriculum put together by those who know that science disagrees with them but choose to push their beliefs rather than facts, and a curriculum put together by those who set out to teach the state of the art, and recognize that the state of the art will and should advance.

Well, it's a pity you didn't make that distinction in your earlier post.

... but even so, it's a false distinction. Newtonian mechanics, for example, is a known falsehood that is still taught in most schools. The wave theory of light is another example. The three elementary particle model. Any model of evolution that doesn't include epigenetics. Heck, the entire biological concept of "kingdom" is one where science disagrees -- most students in the USA are currently taught the five kingdom theory, but there's really no phylogenetic support for it. The current (2010) state of affairs is that even the biologists themselves admit they have little idea how different large-scale groups like animals and plants are related to each other.

But teaching students "the state of the art" is confusing and unhelpful.


There's plenty of research still to be done in medicine, but that in no way excuses the way people deliberately distort what's taught to students to fit their beliefs, in the face of conflicting facts.

But that's different than merely teaching them something that I know to be wrong. I know most of the simplifications I have to use to be wrong, but they're as accurate as the students can handle at the level of development at which I use them.

[Gawdzilla]

Yes such as "Pearl harbour was a surprise attack in that those in a position of power to defend Pearl Harbour were not aware of the Japanese approaching" Also we're taught lies or not the full story about Vietnam and Cuba.

Forty-five years I've been researching this subject, since I was 14. Still haven't found any evidence of foreknowledge by the US. Whatcha got?

[Cainkane1]

I've never heard of anything like this, and Google fails to turn up anything. Is this correct?
Maybe its the law nowadays but when I was in school I was handed a lot of Bull when by my teachers.

[Skeptic Ginger]

A better thread topic would be: should teachers be able to knowingly tell untruths? More controversial, should private schools be allowed to set up curricula (grammar?) that tell teachers to teach untruths, such as that the Theory of Evolution is not true?How should a theist teacher who didn't believe in science (for example evolution theory) but respected his/her duty to teach the standard science curriculum and not personal views address this dilemma?

Are you suggesting they shouldn't teach?


I'm a consultant and a health care practitioner. I may tell an employer my opinion about what they should do, but in the end I provide the service they decide. That doesn't mean I compromise patient safety, but there are many other ethically equivocal decisions employers might make that go against the advice I provide. I have no problem with providing such patient care.

[Skeptic Ginger]

CT ->You might not like the controversial examples in the post, but the point is absolutely valid. You need only look at the latest Texas textbook controversy trying to rename the slave trade and claiming McCarthy was eventually vindicated to see the obvious. History in particular is taught (at least below college level) with clear politically motivated dishonesty.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Teaching a lie? I teach Statistics, for crying out loud!!!

I think Mark Twain said something about that subject! ;)

I see The DoLittle and shadron have already posted on this.

{Note to Self -- do try and keep up.}

[Skeptic Ginger]

Forty-five years I've been researching this subject, since I was 14. Still haven't found any evidence of foreknowledge by the US. Whatcha got?A different thread. ;)

[KoihimeNakamura]

Maybe. (Editing original post). But those are CT's.

[UNLoVedRebel]

If such laws existed in NV, this teacher would be in deep ****.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/teachers-holocaust-denial-causes-uproar-79600822.html

[Azimer the Mad]

Considering I taught my Advanced American History class in middle school out of a copy of "Lies My Teacher Told Me..."

Here in the Sunshine State, we teach what the week-by-week curriculum list tells us. I'm not sure how much fact checking they expect us to do on our own, and I despair of how much others in my profession do. I can't remember any loyalty oaths.

[fossilhound]

The only teacher's oath I ever heard of is, "Dammit, where are my keys?" :D

[ArcanumNoctis]

Why would a teacher knowingly teach a falsehood? Typically, the whole point of lying is because there is gain. What does the teacher gain? A raise? Teacher of the year? If this is the context, then what we have is social engineering where the teacher is aware that social engineering is taking place.

Another aspect to look at is that its okay for the teacher to unknowingly teach falsehoods? In other words it is okay that we have social engineering as long as the teacher isn't aware that it is social engineering?

I guess if you know social engineering is going on, then that defeats the whole purpose of social engineering. Great social engineering law.

[Mark6]

How about knowingly oversimplifying things?

When I taught "calculus for poets", I trashed the complex and counterinuitive limit theory, and just taught the way Newton had it -- with "division by zero gives infinity". It is false, and if you believe it you cannot progress to more advanced calculus, but my students were never going to do that anyway -- and it allowed them to wrap their heads around simple problems (like area under the curve) more easily.

Naturally, I would never to that to math or engineering students -- but was I wrong in the context? Keep in mind, many of them would have failed if I forced them to make sense of limit theory and epsilon.

[Dimitri]

I think Mark Twain said something about that subject! ;)

I see The DoLittle and shadron have already posted on this.

{Note to Self -- do try and keep up.}

Mark Twain (aka Samuel Clemens) his "The art of lying" is quite an interesting read. And thought provoking for the people who ramble about honesty the whole time...

When I taught "calculus for poets", I trashed the complex and counterinuitive limit theory, and just taught the way Newton had it -- with "division by zero gives infinity". It is false, and if you believe it you cannot progress to more advanced calculus, but my students were never going to do that anyway -- and it allowed them to wrap their heads around simple problems (like area under the curve) more easily.

Naturally, I would never to that to math or engineering students -- but was I wrong in the context? Keep in mind, many of them would have failed if I forced them to make sense of limit theory and epsilon.
Oversimplification is not lying. It is only telling "part of the truth". Besides, if there were some students who actually got interested in maths and tackle on the more heavy problems and advanced maths they would have soon noticed and understood it was for simplifying things. Physics teachers do it the whole time (simplifying that is..).

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4018/4372728626_a85d4b6e8b.jpg

[TubbaBlubba]

How about knowingly oversimplifying things?

When I taught "calculus for poets", I trashed the complex and counterinuitive limit theory, and just taught the way Newton had it -- with "division by zero gives infinity". It is false, and if you believe it you cannot progress to more advanced calculus, but my students were never going to do that anyway -- and it allowed them to wrap their heads around simple problems (like area under the curve) more easily.

Naturally, I would never to that to math or engineering students -- but was I wrong in the context? Keep in mind, many of them would have failed if I forced them to make sense of limit theory and epsilon.

How did you go about integration?

"Well, see, then we take this infinitely small number, and then we add it together an infinite amount of time to get a finite answer!"

[Mark6]

How did you go about integration?

"Well, see, then we take this infinitely small number, and then we add it together an infinite amount of time to get a finite answer!"
To be honest, I don't remember. It was 20+ years ago.

Somehow I got them to do it.