T
he
response by Vit Klemeš
(P
HYSICS
T
ODAY
, March
2000, page 100) to a report
about the Kansas State Board
of Education’s decision to
exclude evolution theory from
its science standards has
rekindled some old issues in
the perennial science–religion
debate in education. In partic-
ular, Klemeš poses the ques-
tion of the proper relationship
of science to politics and ideol-
ogy. This discussion has caused me to
reflect on my own role as a teacher
and, in particular, to remind me of two
of my former students, Doug and
Jamal. Both of them had taken my
introductory modern physics course
during their freshman or sophomore
college year.
Doug was an excellent student,
and demonstrated a wonderful under-
standing of what I was teaching. But
across the top of his almost perfect
final examination paper he wrote, “I
still don’t believe in relativity!”
Jamal was not the type to be so
direct. He came into my office a few
years later (just before he was about
to graduate) to say goodbye. We chat-
ted awhile, I wished him well, and
then, as he was about to leave, he
turned to me and said hesitantly in
his characteristically shy way: “Do
you remember that stuff you taught
us about how the universe originated
in the Big Bang about 15 billion years
ago? Well, I don’t really believe all
that.” I must have looked surprised
because he went on. “It kind of con-
flicts with my religious beliefs.” He
looked apprehensively at me, perhaps
to see if I might be offended or angry
or think less of him. But I simply
smiled and let it pass.
Why was I not displeased with
someone who had rejected a whole
semester of my teachings on the phys-
ical origins of the universe, and instead
possibly believed that the world was
created by God about 6000 years ago?
Why did I not leap to the defense of sci-
ence against such irrational beliefs?
(For the record, I am perfectly com-
fortable with the standard scientific
models of cosmology and evolution,
and am not a closet creationist.)
Every time I teach an introductory
modern physics course and look at the
students’ final exams, a sense of puz-
zlement comes over me. Not because
some students have taken the elegant
theories of relativity and quantum
mechanics and made a total hash of
them (which happens all too often,
unfortunately), but because so many
of them seem to actually believe the
theories. The difficulties those stu-
dents have are mostly procedural, in
the sense that they find it difficult to
apply the theories correctly in the
given situations.
I used to ask myself why they
believed what I taught them. For one
thing, as we now know from research
into physics education, everyday phe-
nomena and experience conspire to
produce students who think that any
motion requires a force. Such a pre-
conception makes even Newtonian
mechanics a tough proposition to sell
them. (See
Teaching Physics: Figur-
ing Out What Works
, by Edward F.
Redish and Richard N. Steinberg,
P
HYSICS
T
ODAY
, January 1999, page
24.) Furthermore, the ideas of relativ-
ity and quantum mechanics are so
thoroughly contrary to everyday expe-
rience that I would expect students,
on first hearing these notions, to
reject them out of hand.
I used to wonder whether most stu-
dents were like Jamal, secretly reject-
ing everything I said, but acting oth-
erwise in order to get good grades. But
not many students can successfully
maintain that level of dualistic think-
ing over a long period of time. I final-
ly concluded that most students
believe me because they trust me,
they feel that I have their best inter-
ests at heart and that I would not
deliberately deceive them by teaching
things that I myself did not believe.
They also trust the institution that
awarded me a physics PhD, and the
university and the physics depart-
ment that hired me and allow me to
teach them.
And I use that trust to effectively
brainwash them. We who teach intro-
ductory physics have to acknowledge,
if we are honest with ourselves, that
our teaching methods are primarily
those of propaganda. We appeal—
without demonstration—to
evidence that supports our
position. We only introduce
arguments or evidence that
support the currently
accepted theories, and omit
or gloss over any evidence to
the contrary. We give short
shrift to alternative theo-
ries, introducing them only
in order to promptly demol-
ish them—again by appeal-
ing to undemonstrated
counter-evidence. We drop the names
of famous scientists and Nobel
prizewinners to show that we are
solidly on the side of the scientific
establishment. All of this is designed to
demonstrate the inevitability of the
ideas we currently hold, so that if stu-
dents reject what we say, they are
declaring themselves to be unreason-
ing and illogical, unworthy of being
considered as modern, thinking people.
Of course, we do all this with the
best of intentions and complete sin-
cerity. I have good reasons for employ-
ing propaganda techniques to achieve
belief. I want my students to be
accepted as modern people and to
know what that entails. The courses
are too rushed to allow a thorough air-
ing of all views, of all evidence. In
addition, it is impossible for students
to personally carry out the necessary
experiments, even if they were able to
construct the long chains of inferen-
tial reasoning required to interpret
the experimental results.
So I, like all my colleagues, teach
the way I do because I have little
choice. But it is brainwashing
nonetheless. When the dust settles,
what I am asking my students to do is
to accept what I say because I, as an
accredited representative of my disci-
pline, profession, and academia, say
it. All the reason, logic, and evidence
that I use simply disguise the fact that
the students are not yet in a position
to sift and weigh the evidence and
arrive at their own conclusions.
Conflicting goals of teaching
But if students believe my views on
science because of who I am and what
I represent, what makes this better
than believing others who also claim
to speak in their best interests but
give them contrary views, such as
those of creationism? Let’s suppose I
have two students, both of whom take
my course and have listened carefully
to what I have to say. One believes it
and moves on. The other tells me she
rejects it because she is unconvinced
by me and cannot reconcile my teach-
ings with her other beliefs. Which stu-
O
PINION
Teaching and
Propaganda
Mano Singham
M
ANO
S
INGHAM
teaches in the physics
department, and is associate director of
the University Center for Innovations in
Teaching and Education, at Case Western
Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.
Reuse of AIP Publishing content is subject to the terms at: https://publishing.aip.org/authors/rights-and-permissions. Download to IP: 71.15.99.120 On: Sun, 08 May 2016 13:54:27
J
UNE
2000
P
HYSICS
T
ODAY
55
Circle number 20 on Reader Service Card
dent response should I prefer?
One part of me (the part reflecting
my academic training and profession-
al instincts) tells me to prefer the for-
mer. Is that not the goal of teaching
science: to pass on the hard-earned
knowledge gained by our scientific
predecessors to the next generation,
so that they can build on it? But I am
still uneasy because such “good” stu-
dents have accepted what I say main-
ly because I said it, and are thus also
more likely to unquestioningly accept
the words of “experts” in other areas,
whether they be in politics, the mili-
tary, religion, or the media. These so-
called experts will (like me) cloak their
views in reason, logic, and evidence,
but will in actuality be using the same
propaganda techniques I use.
The other part of me remembers
that I went into teaching science not
just to train competent technicians,
but also to produce people who will
shake up the world and make it a bet-
ter place. This part prefers the latter
student, because her rejection of my
teaching requires a willingness to
challenge authority (me) and the
courage to expose herself to ridicule
by taking an unpopular view. Surely
it is such people who are also more
likely to question authority elsewhere
as well, to take the side of the under-
dog and the powerless against a priv-
ileged and powerful establishment?
Students will forget most of the
information they get in my classes. The
best that I can hope for is to enable my
students to think critically, to detect
propaganda and reject intellectual
coercion, even when I am the one doing
it. What troubles me is the assumption
by some scientists that it would be
quite admirable if people believed what
we say and rejected the views of those
who disagree with us, even though
most people have no real basis for pre-
ferring one view over the other. If sci-
entists want the spirit of true inquiry
to flourish, then we have to accept—
and even encourage—public skepti-
cism about what we say, too. Otherwise,
we become nothing but ideologues.
So I salute you Jamal and Doug,
wherever you are, and say now what
I should have said to you then: “Lis-
ten carefully and courteously to what
knowledgeable people have to say, and
be able to use that information when
necessary. Weigh the arguments for
and against any issue but, ultimately,
stand up for what you believe. Don’t
ever feel forced to accept something
just because some “expert” tells you it
is true. Believe things only when they
make sense to you and you are go
I copied and pasted the article and high lighted certain parts for emphasis. Isn't it ironic that I'm the type student he prefers! I would question him on his science and not just accept his views because of who he is. Heck my problems with evolution are science based not faith based. Evolution actually uses more faith than creationist use. Why you can't handle the science questions I ask you. You area locked into the box they put you in and can't think outside of it. I prove it all the time and thats why you attack me because you can't answer or beat me with actual science.
As all evolutionist do. He makes it science vs religion when with all he admits it really is bad vs good science. He filters what he teaches so you aren't exposed to the big problems scientifically with evolution. Which when I ask you those questions exposing you to them. It is why you can't handle it and attack me instead.
This next article is long. So I will give it a link. It has many responses to it. Each article has where it comes from. This one is from June 2000 Physics today article by Dr. Mano Singham.
The next thread article is the long one i will just link with so many quotes from evolutionist themselves exposing their wilful ignorance. Then I will post one I wrote asking questions and analyzing what you can't beat.
he
response by Vit Klemeš
(P
HYSICS
T
ODAY
, March
2000, page 100) to a report
about the Kansas State Board
of Education’s decision to
exclude evolution theory from
its science standards has
rekindled some old issues in
the perennial science–religion
debate in education. In partic-
ular, Klemeš poses the ques-
tion of the proper relationship
of science to politics and ideol-
ogy. This discussion has caused me to
reflect on my own role as a teacher
and, in particular, to remind me of two
of my former students, Doug and
Jamal. Both of them had taken my
introductory modern physics course
during their freshman or sophomore
college year.
Doug was an excellent student,
and demonstrated a wonderful under-
standing of what I was teaching. But
across the top of his almost perfect
final examination paper he wrote, “I
still don’t believe in relativity!”
Jamal was not the type to be so
direct. He came into my office a few
years later (just before he was about
to graduate) to say goodbye. We chat-
ted awhile, I wished him well, and
then, as he was about to leave, he
turned to me and said hesitantly in
his characteristically shy way: “Do
you remember that stuff you taught
us about how the universe originated
in the Big Bang about 15 billion years
ago? Well, I don’t really believe all
that.” I must have looked surprised
because he went on. “It kind of con-
flicts with my religious beliefs.” He
looked apprehensively at me, perhaps
to see if I might be offended or angry
or think less of him. But I simply
smiled and let it pass.
Why was I not displeased with
someone who had rejected a whole
semester of my teachings on the phys-
ical origins of the universe, and instead
possibly believed that the world was
created by God about 6000 years ago?
Why did I not leap to the defense of sci-
ence against such irrational beliefs?
(For the record, I am perfectly com-
fortable with the standard scientific
models of cosmology and evolution,
and am not a closet creationist.)
Every time I teach an introductory
modern physics course and look at the
students’ final exams, a sense of puz-
zlement comes over me. Not because
some students have taken the elegant
theories of relativity and quantum
mechanics and made a total hash of
them (which happens all too often,
unfortunately), but because so many
of them seem to actually believe the
theories. The difficulties those stu-
dents have are mostly procedural, in
the sense that they find it difficult to
apply the theories correctly in the
given situations.
I used to ask myself why they
believed what I taught them. For one
thing, as we now know from research
into physics education, everyday phe-
nomena and experience conspire to
produce students who think that any
motion requires a force. Such a pre-
conception makes even Newtonian
mechanics a tough proposition to sell
them. (See
Teaching Physics: Figur-
ing Out What Works
, by Edward F.
Redish and Richard N. Steinberg,
P
HYSICS
T
ODAY
, January 1999, page
24.) Furthermore, the ideas of relativ-
ity and quantum mechanics are so
thoroughly contrary to everyday expe-
rience that I would expect students,
on first hearing these notions, to
reject them out of hand.
I used to wonder whether most stu-
dents were like Jamal, secretly reject-
ing everything I said, but acting oth-
erwise in order to get good grades. But
not many students can successfully
maintain that level of dualistic think-
ing over a long period of time. I final-
ly concluded that most students
believe me because they trust me,
they feel that I have their best inter-
ests at heart and that I would not
deliberately deceive them by teaching
things that I myself did not believe.
They also trust the institution that
awarded me a physics PhD, and the
university and the physics depart-
ment that hired me and allow me to
teach them.
And I use that trust to effectively
brainwash them. We who teach intro-
ductory physics have to acknowledge,
if we are honest with ourselves, that
our teaching methods are primarily
those of propaganda. We appeal—
without demonstration—to
evidence that supports our
position. We only introduce
arguments or evidence that
support the currently
accepted theories, and omit
or gloss over any evidence to
the contrary. We give short
shrift to alternative theo-
ries, introducing them only
in order to promptly demol-
ish them—again by appeal-
ing to undemonstrated
counter-evidence. We drop the names
of famous scientists and Nobel
prizewinners to show that we are
solidly on the side of the scientific
establishment. All of this is designed to
demonstrate the inevitability of the
ideas we currently hold, so that if stu-
dents reject what we say, they are
declaring themselves to be unreason-
ing and illogical, unworthy of being
considered as modern, thinking people.
Of course, we do all this with the
best of intentions and complete sin-
cerity. I have good reasons for employ-
ing propaganda techniques to achieve
belief. I want my students to be
accepted as modern people and to
know what that entails. The courses
are too rushed to allow a thorough air-
ing of all views, of all evidence. In
addition, it is impossible for students
to personally carry out the necessary
experiments, even if they were able to
construct the long chains of inferen-
tial reasoning required to interpret
the experimental results.
So I, like all my colleagues, teach
the way I do because I have little
choice. But it is brainwashing
nonetheless. When the dust settles,
what I am asking my students to do is
to accept what I say because I, as an
accredited representative of my disci-
pline, profession, and academia, say
it. All the reason, logic, and evidence
that I use simply disguise the fact that
the students are not yet in a position
to sift and weigh the evidence and
arrive at their own conclusions.
Conflicting goals of teaching
But if students believe my views on
science because of who I am and what
I represent, what makes this better
than believing others who also claim
to speak in their best interests but
give them contrary views, such as
those of creationism? Let’s suppose I
have two students, both of whom take
my course and have listened carefully
to what I have to say. One believes it
and moves on. The other tells me she
rejects it because she is unconvinced
by me and cannot reconcile my teach-
ings with her other beliefs. Which stu-
O
PINION
Teaching and
Propaganda
Mano Singham
M
ANO
S
INGHAM
teaches in the physics
department, and is associate director of
the University Center for Innovations in
Teaching and Education, at Case Western
Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.
Reuse of AIP Publishing content is subject to the terms at: https://publishing.aip.org/authors/rights-and-permissions. Download to IP: 71.15.99.120 On: Sun, 08 May 2016 13:54:27
J
UNE
2000
P
HYSICS
T
ODAY
55
Circle number 20 on Reader Service Card
dent response should I prefer?
One part of me (the part reflecting
my academic training and profession-
al instincts) tells me to prefer the for-
mer. Is that not the goal of teaching
science: to pass on the hard-earned
knowledge gained by our scientific
predecessors to the next generation,
so that they can build on it? But I am
still uneasy because such “good” stu-
dents have accepted what I say main-
ly because I said it, and are thus also
more likely to unquestioningly accept
the words of “experts” in other areas,
whether they be in politics, the mili-
tary, religion, or the media. These so-
called experts will (like me) cloak their
views in reason, logic, and evidence,
but will in actuality be using the same
propaganda techniques I use.
The other part of me remembers
that I went into teaching science not
just to train competent technicians,
but also to produce people who will
shake up the world and make it a bet-
ter place. This part prefers the latter
student, because her rejection of my
teaching requires a willingness to
challenge authority (me) and the
courage to expose herself to ridicule
by taking an unpopular view. Surely
it is such people who are also more
likely to question authority elsewhere
as well, to take the side of the under-
dog and the powerless against a priv-
ileged and powerful establishment?
Students will forget most of the
information they get in my classes. The
best that I can hope for is to enable my
students to think critically, to detect
propaganda and reject intellectual
coercion, even when I am the one doing
it. What troubles me is the assumption
by some scientists that it would be
quite admirable if people believed what
we say and rejected the views of those
who disagree with us, even though
most people have no real basis for pre-
ferring one view over the other. If sci-
entists want the spirit of true inquiry
to flourish, then we have to accept—
and even encourage—public skepti-
cism about what we say, too. Otherwise,
we become nothing but ideologues.
So I salute you Jamal and Doug,
wherever you are, and say now what
I should have said to you then: “Lis-
ten carefully and courteously to what
knowledgeable people have to say, and
be able to use that information when
necessary. Weigh the arguments for
and against any issue but, ultimately,
stand up for what you believe. Don’t
ever feel forced to accept something
just because some “expert” tells you it
is true. Believe things only when they
make sense to you and you are go
I copied and pasted the article and high lighted certain parts for emphasis. Isn't it ironic that I'm the type student he prefers! I would question him on his science and not just accept his views because of who he is. Heck my problems with evolution are science based not faith based. Evolution actually uses more faith than creationist use. Why you can't handle the science questions I ask you. You area locked into the box they put you in and can't think outside of it. I prove it all the time and thats why you attack me because you can't answer or beat me with actual science.
As all evolutionist do. He makes it science vs religion when with all he admits it really is bad vs good science. He filters what he teaches so you aren't exposed to the big problems scientifically with evolution. Which when I ask you those questions exposing you to them. It is why you can't handle it and attack me instead.
This next article is long. So I will give it a link. It has many responses to it. Each article has where it comes from. This one is from June 2000 Physics today article by Dr. Mano Singham.
The next thread article is the long one i will just link with so many quotes from evolutionist themselves exposing their wilful ignorance. Then I will post one I wrote asking questions and analyzing what you can't beat.
