funsec mailing list archives
Re: No Tag anymore !?!
From: "Fergie" <fergdawg () netzero net>
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 01:26:53 GMT
I wasn't necessarily going to mention this, but this topic reared its [ugly] head again. :-) [snip] "Educators Debate Taking The Blood And Explosions Out Of Science" Can computers and the internet be used to simulate a lab in an educational setting? This is the subject of an emerging debate, as more classrooms opt to forego real lab equipment, in favor of virtual replications. So instead of carving up a frog with a scalpel, a student can use their mouse to do the same thing. Those in favor of the practice note its cost savings and the fact that students trained this way have shown strong scores on standardized science tests. The predictable response is that virtual training is no substitute for the real world. And there may be something to this charge. The antiseptic virtual environment can't train a student to properly care for lab equipment, take proper safety measure, or deal with unexpected events that may occur in the process. For anyone who might go on to do science academically or professionally, these are vital skills. Another dynamic at play here is the ongoing assault on anything that might be dangerous. This summer, Wired had an excellent piece about how new regulations make it difficult to obtain basic chemistry sets, and other scientific equipment that could be "dangerous to children". Of course, by eliminating the possibility of a child ever being in the presence of a chemical explosion, you eliminate much of what makes a kid want to be a scientist. If you take the blood and guts out of dissection, then you're basically just playing puzzle. While computers can be a great educational tool, with endless possibilities in the sciences, it seems that kids are missing out by eliminating the real-world experience. [snip] Link: http://techdirt.com/articles/20061020/115901.shtml - ferg -- der Mouse <mouse () rodents montreal qc ca> wrote:
Consider how many people these days need corrective lenses to have good vision - genes for poor vision are far less of a reproductive handicap than they once were. Similar remarks apply to a lot of other things, such as asthma.Are you suggesting that we start rounding up people with corrective lenses and asthma, and taking steps to ensure that they can't breed?
No. Why would you want to eliminate the genes for them? As I said, those aren't the reproductive handicap they once were; how did you leap from that to wanting to make them so once again? [snip] -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
Current thread:
- RE: No Tag anymore !?! Alex Eckelberry (Oct 19)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: No Tag anymore !?! Fergie (Oct 19)
- Re: No Tag anymore !?! Fergie (Oct 20)
- Re: No Tag anymore !?! Drsolly (Oct 21)