It’s a well written piece but I think (in a similar vein to that article) a lot of it is driven by the codification and deification of “Science”. Given down to children, their heads filled with our best theories.
There are different systems for generating information. Knowledge”, and therefore “Science”, are dangerous words.
Our modern Western Liberal colonial societies don’t have it all figured out but have a hegemony that often chafes indigenous peoples.
I think we would be better recasting what we teach, and what we try to teach as Empiricism or something similar.
Frame it around experimentation. Frame it around students own desire to learn and share their learnings. Go after the “why?” that they love so much.
I think it’s at once compatible with non “Science” knowledge systems, cultivates curiosity, and engenders that which creates knowledge.
It also protects empiricism from the urge some have to deny what lends authority to good science.
There are different systems for generating information. Knowledge”, and therefore “Science”, are dangerous words.
Our modern Western Liberal colonial societies don’t have it all figured out but have a hegemony that often chafes indigenous peoples.
I think we would be better recasting what we teach, and what we try to teach as Empiricism or something similar.
Frame it around experimentation. Frame it around students own desire to learn and share their learnings. Go after the “why?” that they love so much.
I think it’s at once compatible with non “Science” knowledge systems, cultivates curiosity, and engenders that which creates knowledge.
It also protects empiricism from the urge some have to deny what lends authority to good science.