By OUTRIDER
Updated: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:58:07 UTC

My son is currently studying his first year of GCSEs, and has had a series of exams in Chemistry, Biology and Physics this week.

To help prepare for this he has been given a pre-printed revision book on each subject, and we've been going through them with him to help him learn...

... and it's been frightening. When I was at school learning science was, well, about science. You learnt what chemicals did when you mixed them and why, and the best understanding of the sequence of filling electron shells. Nowadays, you get things like this:

"Almost all users of hard drugs have tried Cannabis first (though most users of cannabis do not go on to use hard drugs). The link between cannabis and hard drugs isn't clear..."

Followed by the question: Describe three opinions about the link between cannabis and hard drug use.

It doesn't matter - opinions aren't science, and they've already established that, scientifically speaking, any possible link hasn't been established.

Needless to say, all three 'opinions' that they're looking for are distinctly negative: cannabis is a stepping stone to harder drugs, cannabis is a 'gateway drug', or people that use drugs do so because of a genetic flaw.

Personally I think there are probably other 'opinions' that are equally invalid (scientifically speaking), equally common but not in line with the Government's propoganda on the topic.

In Chemistry we have a similar situation:

What's the definition of an ore? Fairly simple, you'd think, with some scope for variations in language it's the naturally occurring rock from which metallic elements can be sourced.

Apparently, according to this book: A metal ore is a rock which contains enough metal to make it worthwhile extracting the metal from it.

Really? So, depending on the economy or market pressures, bauxite could be an ore one day and then not an ore the next day?

Or how about ... Plans to develop a limestone quarry and a cement factory on some hills next to your town are announced. Describe the views the following might have:

That's not science. A Daily Mail letter from 'Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' is not science.

Maybe, just maybe, if science dealt with clearly delineating between conclusions based upon evidence and concepts rejected because they don't fit the evidence we wouldn't be in a society where people seem to think that science is just opinion with a lab-coat and that there are two sides to every question.

O.

TAGGED: EDUCATION, SCIENCE