SUCCESS!

I mentioned yesterday that my son is studying the origins of the moon.

I had Cayman read the three theories offered by his non-science book, and the same book's dismissals of them all as obvious nonsense, and the final conclusion that only the Biblical account, a literal interpretation, could be correct, since all the silly guesses science made were wrong.

Today, I had him read another view: this article from the Planetary Science Institute.

I wanted him to reach a few conclusions.

1. Information on Giant Impact Theory was deliberately left out by the authors of his textbook.
2. The PSI article offered information about publication and peer review, gave supporting evidence, and gave sources so that an interested party could do more research; his textbook failed to do so.
3. Not all published claims are true. Sometimes information given is, intentionally or otherwise, misleading, and you need to consider what evidence is given, whether you trust the source(s), and whether you are missing information.

Well, I helped him a little- I hinted that he should check the date of his textbook, and reminded him to pay attention to dates as he read the PSI article. He said, "This was already around when they wrote my book! They just didn't put it in because it would've made it sound like science might be right!"

I asked him specifically about sources, peer review, and publication. He said that his book only gave 'these are silly, so science must be wrong', and that the PSI article told about researchers who had worked on the idea, and where they had published it, and how they had come to the conclusion.

Then he got up and wandered off into the kitchen, and changed the subject a little. He wanted to know how books like this textbook could even be published. He was really shocked at the idea that basically anything written down can be published- there's no requirement for it to be true. And you know, that's what our kids go to school thinking. If it's in my textbook, it must be true. If my teacher says it, it must be true. They wouldn't teach us lies, misinform us, or even accidentally be wrong. I remember an argument with my own mom, when she and my science teacher disagreed on something, and I remember yelling at her that  Ms. Manning was the one who was right, "...because she is a SCIENTIST!" I don't remember the topic, and maybe Ms. Manning was right. Maybe she wasn't. Either way, I had the wrong reason for believing her view over my mom's. Instead of 'because she showed us evidence' or 'because there are a lot of scientists working on this, and they haven't been able to prove it so far' or 'because it's the view that makes the most sense', my reason was basically that Ms. Manning was my science teacher, therefore she was right, and what she said was right, and that was that. I've been trying hard to teach my kids that this isn't the case. You have a good teacher, her intentions are good, she always teaches you what she believes is right, but she is human, just like you and I, and so she's capable of making mistakes too. And when she does, it doesn't mean you stop listening to her, it means you accept that all people make mistakes, and you move on to the next thing. It's really hard for kids. Teachers are such absolute authority figures, they just have a hard time believing one can be wrong.

So yeah, I was really pleased that he seemed to get the lesson that sometimes a source that looks like it should be trustworthy isn't.

But then, then came the part that has me absolutely giddy.

He said, "Let's check NASA, mom, and see what they have to say about the matter."

He didn't just accept PSI's information either, even though we had discussed reasons that it was more trustworthy than the textbook. Instead, he thought, on his own, without prompting, of a source that he already knew he trusted on the subject matter, and he asked to check with them.

NASA's website, of course, confirmed PSI's information, mentioning the same scientists, same conferences, same publications, and much the same supporting evidence. We didn't read all NASA had to offer- it was long, and he was getting antsy- but he skimmed it, and pointed things out- "Mom, that's the same scientist from the other article!" "Oh, look, this is the computer simulation of how it could've happened!" and so on.

I don't expect every lesson to be as exciting and as rewarding as this one, but this majorly perks me up about the prospects of teaching these kids myself.