I could use this space to comment on the almost-six-month absence of blog posts here on Scripted Spontaneity. I could apologize to the few loyal readers that this blog has left. I could promise to be more consistent in the future. I could even try to explain away all of that time with stories of second jobs and new priorities.
Instead, I’ll just get back to the work of sharing and reflecting here as if nothing has happened and no time has passed since the last post.
photo credit: Talk Shows On Mute via photopin (license)
This one is a bit off-topic for this space, but it is an issue that I care about deeply. A recent piece by my local NPR station (WUNC) drew my attention.
Researchers in the Math Department at Duke University used a computer simulation to draw congressional districts in North Carolina and compare the outcomes to what actually happened in 2012 with the districts that were
gerrymandered carefully drawn by the General Assembly following the 2010 Census.
The results are not really surprising. The majority of state voters selected Democratic candidates for seats in the legislature, but the outcomes actually favored Republicans with more than twice as many of them winning their elections. The research showed that this does not match the “desires of the voters”.
It certainly seems like this tool can be useful for diagnosing the effects of gerrymandering. Maybe someday we’ll have a bipartisan commission to decide district boundaries.
Image courtesy of Wikipedia
“If you can’t trust doctors not to commit crimes against humanity, not trusting them with injecting your kids with something they tell you is safe makes sense.”
From commentor SadPanda1235 on this recent io9 blog post in which the author of the post asks for advice about discussing science with anti-vaccination relatives. The commentor rightly points out that many people have good reason not to trust modern science.
“It would seem that expecting people to be convinced by the facts flies in the face of, you know, the facts.”
Chris Mooney, in a Mother Jones essay about the way some people rationalize their irrational thinking.
“Better policy would focus on school and teacher inputs. For example, we should agree on a set of clear and specific best teaching practices (with the caveat that they’d have to be sufficiently flexible to allow for different teaching styles) on which to base teacher evaluations. Similarly, college counselors should provide college applicants with guidance about the components of good applications. Football coaches should likewise focus on their players’ decision-making and execution of blocking, tackling, route-running, and other techniques.”
From a recent post by Ben Spielberg (hat tip to Larry Ferlazzo for sharing it) in which he uses quotes from Nate Silver’s “The Signal and The Noise” to destroy the idea that teacher evaluation should be based on short-term data like test scores. I loved Silver’s book and I enjoyed the connection here.
So, thanks to a recent article in The Atlantic, we can add another item to our list of reasons that traditional grading practices don’t serve students well. From the article,
“The testing situation may underestimate girls’ abilities, but the classroom may underestimate boys’ abilities.”
The author, Enrico Gnaulati, goes on to describe situations in which schools are removing the work habits information from what they call “knowledge grades” to make them a better representation of mastery by students of all sexes.
Sounds familiar, huh?
Why is Scientific Literacy important?
“So that you can dismiss information that is untrue and potentially harmful. Being science literate means that you can examine the evidence behind a claim like “vaccines cause autism” or “GMOs cause cancer” or “evolution is a lie from the pit of hell” and not be fooled by psuedoscience, opinions, logical fallacies, and fear mongering masquerading as fact.”
A comment from user raiju on an open discussion on the tech site io9 about why being knowledgeable in science is so important.
Why do you think that this is a critical issue?