Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
American Association for the Advancement of.... Stupidity
I've got a AAAS (S supposedly = "Science") book in hand called "The
Evolution Dialogues: Science, Christianity, and the Quest for Understanding" I'd expect better from the AAAS, but right here on page 141 is this statement: "The evolution of seeds enabled plants to spread rapidly and diversify into ferns, mosses, horsetails, cycads, and, later, conifers." I think that would make a good botany exam question: "What is wrong with the following statment?" On the previous page, the book is off on the time of the rise of flowering plants by about 10 million years. Doesn't *anyone* employ a fact-checker for publications anymore??? Monique Reed Biology Department Texas A&M |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
American Association for the Advancement of.... Stupidity
Factual errors about plants are widespread in the science teaching
literature (Hershey 2004a, 2005b) including biology textbooks, the National Science Education Standards (Hershey 2005a) and refereed science education journals such as American Biology Teacher (ABT). Especially error-filled ABT articles were those by Smith & Avery (1999), DeGolier (2002) and Allchin (2005) and several of the Biology Today columns on plants, particularly Flannery (2002). Some of these were discussed previously in this group or elsewhere (Hershey 1999, 2004b, 2005c). Scientific organizations often do not seem concerned about correcting factual errors about plants. A few years ago, I contacted the Smithsonian Institution about their Bee-free Barbecue webpage, which stated that bee pollination was required to produce sugar, potatoes, vanilla, cucumbers and several other crops that actually did not require bee pollination. Commercially, potatoes and sugar cane are asexually-propagated and the edible part is a stem, not a fruit or seed. Commercial vanilla is hand-pollinated. Seedless cucumbers are produced by preventing bee pollination. The Smithsonian representative told me they would make corrections but never did. The Bee-free barbecue page is another good one for a botany exam question, "What is wrong with the following statement?" I have also submitted numerous emails to a variety of educational websites politely pointing out factual errors about plants. In most cases, I never even receive a reply. For several years, I submitted letters to American Biology Teacher pointing out factual errors about plants in ABT articles, and almost all were published. But last year after submitting a few letters, the ABT publisher refused to publish my corrections, banned me from submitting any items to ABT for over a year and imposed lifetime restrictions on what I could publish in ABT. He also threatened me with "legal sanctions" if I did not remove PDF files of the ABT articles I authored from my website, despite the ABT policy that "Authors are granted unlimited noncommercial use." Those are strong disincentives to correct factual errors about plants. Perhaps the Botanical Society of America or American Society of Plant Biologists could start a "Bad Botany" webpage to bring attention to the many glaring plant errors in websites and publications of prestigious organizations such as AAAS, NASA, Smithsonian Institution, BBC, PBS, Library of Congress, etc. David R. Hershey http://www.angelfire.com/ab6/hershey/bio.htm References Allchin, D. 2005. Genes 'r' us. American Biology Teacher 67: 244-246. DeGolier, T. 2002. Cold war: Flora's undercover agents, a campus winter field trip to illustrate that plants do indeed thermoregulate. American Biology Teacher 64: 45-51. Flannery, M.C. 2002. Do plants have to be intelligent? American Biology Teacher 64: 628-633. Hershey, D.R. 1999. Supermarket botany article. Bionet.plants.education [July] http://www.bio.net/hypermail/plant-e...ly/thread.html Hershey, D.R. 2004a. Avoid misconceptions when teaching about plants. [August] http://www.actionbioscience.org/education/hershey.html Hershey, D.R. 2004b. Another inaccurate botany teaching article. Bionet.plants.education [August] http://www.bio.net/hypermail/plant-e...st/thread.html Hershey, D.R. 2005a. Plant content in the National Science Education Standards [February] http://www.actionbioscience.org/education/hershey2.html Hershey, D.R. 2005b. More misconceptions to avoid when teaching about plants. [October] http://www.actionbioscience.org/education/hershey3.html Hershey, D.R. 2005c. Plants are indeed intelligent. Plant Science Bulletin 51: 75-77. http://botany.org/PlantScienceBullet...1-3.php#Plants Bee-free Barbecue http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/..._activity2.gif Smith, D.G. and Avery, D.F. 1999. Supermarket botany. American Biology Teacher 61: 128-131. monique wrote: I've got a AAAS (S supposedly = "Science") book in hand called "The Evolution Dialogues: Science, Christianity, and the Quest for Understanding" I'd expect better from the AAAS, but right here on page 141 is this statement: "The evolution of seeds enabled plants to spread rapidly and diversify into ferns, mosses, horsetails, cycads, and, later, conifers." I think that would make a good botany exam question: "What is wrong with the following statment?" On the previous page, the book is off on the time of the rise of flowering plants by about 10 million years. Doesn't *anyone* employ a fact-checker for publications anymore??? Monique Reed Biology Department Texas A&M |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Packaging Stupidity. Was: Lidl's seeds | United Kingdom | |||
Packaging Stupidity. Was: Lidl's seeds | United Kingdom | |||
[IBC] P.O'd at stupidity -- MINE! | Bonsai |