In the previous post Inconsistent History Lessons in 1st Grade, I pointed out how in 1st grade they start off with speculation as if it is fact. In particular, they associate a few artifacts with a rather lengthy fictional story of an imaginary girl and her family. Needless to say, using fiction to attempt to convince a child something is true is dishonest.
You may be asking why I am making an issue out of this. Well, it comes back to the standard process of child development that goes by the names of abstract versus concrete thinking. Concrete thinking is looking at things in the terms of what your senses can discern. The door is brown. Abstract thinking is concerning those things we cannot readily detect with our senses. Going with the door example, a door is brown due to the portions of the color spectrum the wood and varnish absorb and reflect. Try explaining that to a 6 year old and I can guarantee they will look at you as if you are talking weird. If you spend time with children, you will already know that children begin life as concrete thinkers as they take in their environment to learn how to interact with it. The beginnings of abstract reasoning just barely begin at age 7 for most. Abstract reasoning is often at a good enough level around 11-14. Unfortunately, puberty messes things up at that same time.
Boiling it all down, a 6 or 7 year old has next to no chance of telling what is fiction and what is fact unless they are told. So to present what is speculative to a first grader is akin to lying. But this sets the stage for later opinions to be taught as fact which only succeeds in ruining a quality education.
In my prior article, I commented on the depiction of the Nomads speculated at migrating to the Mesopotamian region. There are a few problems with this which we derive from observational science. The first large hurdle omitted is in the example is a very rudimentary question. If all of these Nomads are headed to Mesopotamia, where did they all come from? Of all the places on the earth, why only the Fertile Crescent region? Or is this only speculation due to an incomplete global history? Better yet, why are speculations on prehistoric times being taught in History?
To complicate these matters further are two scientific discoveries from observation. The first comes in the form of mitochondrial “Eve”. If you are up for some ‘light’ reading, I would suggest you click on the link. To summarize it in a nutshell, all humans alive today are descended from a lady that lived about 6000-6500 years ago. That is according to the data. Now you will have a fair batch arguing against the data because the data does not fit their speculations and opinions. Minor detail that true Science is supposed to follow the evidence wherever it may lead.
The second discovery comes from a study done and reported on a Discovery / National Geographic massive research project. For the life of me, I cannot remember the title as it was from a few years ago. I will edit this post when I can remember and find it. To summarize it, a group of scientist decided to track backwards the bodily changes in human populations native to a region. The results showed a progression from South America, up to North America, then to the Alaskan region, over to Siberia, down to Mongolia then over to the Mid-East. African populations similarly go northward up into the mid-east. The same holds with all of the Asian countries. The Caucasian populations of Europe also were shown to originate in the Mid-East until they found individual native to a region that held all of the traits of each regional subset. The Mid-East region they were found in is incredibly close to the Fertile Crescent / Mesopotamian region. Interesting isn’t it?
Now this gets even more interesting as the mitochondrial “Eve” date falls in line with the growth curve of the human populations throughout history. So the “Nomads” and the entire unit 2 are in conflict with the measured dates of mitochondrial “Eve” and the pattern of human migration which came from the Mid-East not to the Mid-East.
Now where were those “Nomads” from?
As a side note on educating yourself on these issues, I should point something out.
You may be asking why I am making an issue out of this. Well, it comes back to the standard process of child development that goes by the names of abstract versus concrete thinking. Concrete thinking is looking at things in the terms of what your senses can discern. The door is brown. Abstract thinking is concerning those things we cannot readily detect with our senses. Going with the door example, a door is brown due to the portions of the color spectrum the wood and varnish absorb and reflect. Try explaining that to a 6 year old and I can guarantee they will look at you as if you are talking weird. If you spend time with children, you will already know that children begin life as concrete thinkers as they take in their environment to learn how to interact with it. The beginnings of abstract reasoning just barely begin at age 7 for most. Abstract reasoning is often at a good enough level around 11-14. Unfortunately, puberty messes things up at that same time.
Boiling it all down, a 6 or 7 year old has next to no chance of telling what is fiction and what is fact unless they are told. So to present what is speculative to a first grader is akin to lying. But this sets the stage for later opinions to be taught as fact which only succeeds in ruining a quality education.
In my prior article, I commented on the depiction of the Nomads speculated at migrating to the Mesopotamian region. There are a few problems with this which we derive from observational science. The first large hurdle omitted is in the example is a very rudimentary question. If all of these Nomads are headed to Mesopotamia, where did they all come from? Of all the places on the earth, why only the Fertile Crescent region? Or is this only speculation due to an incomplete global history? Better yet, why are speculations on prehistoric times being taught in History?
To complicate these matters further are two scientific discoveries from observation. The first comes in the form of mitochondrial “Eve”. If you are up for some ‘light’ reading, I would suggest you click on the link. To summarize it in a nutshell, all humans alive today are descended from a lady that lived about 6000-6500 years ago. That is according to the data. Now you will have a fair batch arguing against the data because the data does not fit their speculations and opinions. Minor detail that true Science is supposed to follow the evidence wherever it may lead.
The second discovery comes from a study done and reported on a Discovery / National Geographic massive research project. For the life of me, I cannot remember the title as it was from a few years ago. I will edit this post when I can remember and find it. To summarize it, a group of scientist decided to track backwards the bodily changes in human populations native to a region. The results showed a progression from South America, up to North America, then to the Alaskan region, over to Siberia, down to Mongolia then over to the Mid-East. African populations similarly go northward up into the mid-east. The same holds with all of the Asian countries. The Caucasian populations of Europe also were shown to originate in the Mid-East until they found individual native to a region that held all of the traits of each regional subset. The Mid-East region they were found in is incredibly close to the Fertile Crescent / Mesopotamian region. Interesting isn’t it?
Now this gets even more interesting as the mitochondrial “Eve” date falls in line with the growth curve of the human populations throughout history. So the “Nomads” and the entire unit 2 are in conflict with the measured dates of mitochondrial “Eve” and the pattern of human migration which came from the Mid-East not to the Mid-East.
Now where were those “Nomads” from?
As a side note on educating yourself on these issues, I should point something out.
Even though historians and textbook authors have history degrees, there are still plenty of inconsistencies in history. Even an online college may teach different things than traditional colleges. Though, all online degree programs are designed with accuracy and credibility in mind.
0 comments
Post a Comment