Re: No Tag anymore !?!

["Fergie" <fergdawg () netzero net>]

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.