> By your argument, drugs research is bad science if there's you suspect that the motive is to improve patient care. That's just silly.
And often that motive, as well as financial motives, perverts greatly the science in drug research. I never said that science cannot have a motive other than science. Just that science is often, and in the case of education research, almost fully, perverted by motives other than science. And a lot of drug science is bad science because of this. Not all of it.
> You also seem to take it for granted that we can't teach children to be smart. That's controversial; there's evidence to the contrary---that IQ is malleable.
Sure. In "research" papers. You have taught a countless number of students over decades. Is that how you see it? Seriously. That is like saying that a cure for cancer has been found, yet everyone keeps dying of it. I am in Joe's corner as far as what we can do with children. We can push, encourage and teach them to do the most with what they have. And that doesn't mean algebra. And it doesn't mean everything else and algebra. It means that many times it doesn't mean algebra at all. Our educational policies, at least at a national level, have went in a direction entirely opposite that philosophy. And it looks like a farce. No?
> And consider this: All of today's "good science" is rooted in the "bad science" of older times. I've suggested a number of times that education "science" today is a good bit like, say,the science underlying electricity in the time of Faraday. In those days, there was little anyone could do with electricity but continue to gather data, because no one had a reasonable, generally accepted, model of what was going on.
Rooted is a pretty strong word. If education science is like the science of electricity then where is the "electricity"? Where is the phenomena that we can replicate and duplicate and study over and over again? Education research isn't even to the earth, water, air and fire stage yet. Back to my previous paragraph, until they find the philosopher's stone, wouldn't it have been more prudent, spectacular even, if the majority of this research and effort was aimed at what we do know. Given that people go in many directions, some academic, some vocational, some thinkers, some doers, then where is all the research on how to best create schools for that? Where is any of the research on how to best create schools for that? In fact, where are the freaking schools???
> Alchemy was certainly not science; but it laid the foundation for today's chemistry.
Prescience might be a better word. Read that as non-science. I am sure that some alchemists thought for a moment and said to themselves "There is something more to this, something rational" and then became scientists. And the other alchemists continued to be alchemists, even to this day, in the form of drug research.:)
> >> You give these articles and papers a pass on any real scrutiny because of what they promise not because of the quality of the science (which like most education research is extremely poor). As I pointed out, smart kids are going to do things better, faster and sooner regardless. A much better conclusion at this point, especially with the virtual infinite amount of data we have, is that these kids do these primitive tasks better because they are smarter. If this paper had a shred of scientific purpose, that detail would have been pointed out in bold print. > > Regardless of motive, the study's conclusions are what they are. Better "monkey sense" is involved in better mathematical ability. There isn't enough information for us to tell what the relationship is---only that it's there, and that seems to be a fact that disturbs you. Why? Rejecting data because you don't like them, or question the motives that led to them, isn't good science, either.
What disturbs me is that my rather simple point should have been picked up immediately by a logician such as yourself. I never rejected the data. I accepted as fact that the students who scored higher with tasks involving monkey-sense also scored higher later on with mathematical tasks. I even accepted, for the sake of argument, the author's concept of "tasks involving monkey-sense" and "tasks involving math ability". I just provided a more reasonable explanation. Namely, kids with mathematical ability will perform better, early on, with tasks involving monkey-sense. I understand that the author want's it the other way around. I understand that the author's hypothesis is that monkey-sense is an element of mathematical ability. But just because this is a nascent field od research doesn't give it a pass on deductive reasoning. And that is what is really at fault here. Why do educational scientists (this is probably physiological science) adopt the 3rd grade definition of scien! ce that goes Hypothesis->Experiment->Proof, while the rest of science involves 90% reasoning and 10% experiment?