From: Jay Willingham (jaywillingham@cfl.rr.com)
Date: Wed Nov 13 2002 - 12:13:06 EST
No more difficult to prove than the testimony of the textbook itself.
"Dumb" has come to connote far more than speach-challenged, embracing the
denotations of the other terms to which you refer.
Agreed, so many "experts" are just unknown drips under pressure.
However, errors of that sort in a science textbook are to me symptomatic of
deeper problems with the knowledge base of the author, like those I saw in
the tppf.org site in the social studies text.
It would seem that school texts from pre-school through grad school should
be subjected to extremely rigorous peer review. We owe our children at
least that much. Right now, school texts seem to be written by whomever is
willing to do so for very little, often as a term of tenure... with the
publishers reaping enormous rewards (have you seen the prices lately?).
Jay Willingham, Esq.
Central Florida
----- Original Message -----
From: "John W Burgeson" <burgytwo@juno.com>
To: <jaywillingham@cfl.rr.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: Religious Right in Texas
> >>I agree high school texts have been dumbed down because those who write
> them are dumb.>>
>
> Somehow that seems like a claim that would be difficult to provide
> grounds for. "Ignorant," or "uninformed" or even "incompetent" might
> better fit SOME of them perhaps. I would guess that textbook writers are
> just like the rest of us -- doing the best job they know how under a
> plethora of conflicting requirements.
>
> "I recently saw a science textbook written in NJ for Florida high school
> students. It referred to a cypress tree as a mangrove."
>
> Hmm. Although I lived in Florida twice, Tallahassee/Panama City in the
> 50s and Delray Beach in the 70s, I must confess I don't know the
> difference. I guess I might have made the same error if I were writing
> (if the difference was not particularly pertinent to the subject matter).
>
>
> ...
>
> >>Try http://www.tppf.org/ . They at least provide actual textbook
> passages and reviews. Thus far I have reviewed some of the social
> studies/history references and find TFM's positions to be misleading.>>
>
> Thanks for the site reference. I will look at it. Which of TFN's
> statements do you think is misleading?
>
> John Burgeson (Burgy)
>
> http://www.burgy.50megs.com
> (an eclectic web site about science/theology, quantum mechanics,
> ethics, baseball, humor, cars, philosophy, etc.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Nov 14 2002 - 01:24:46 EST