Re: Textbooks
Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia-Sadi0fl/VCj2fBVCVOL8/[email protected]> Wed, 25 Jun 2003 00:07:14 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.wikimedia.textbook |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <20030625070714.GG3993__26754.2009395131$1323104879$gmane$org@math-cl-n01.ucr.edu> |
[The post that I'm replying to appeared on <wikiEN-L>. Replies whould go to <textbook-L.>] Anthere wrote in part: >Maveric149 wrote: >>Same thing is true for a section of a medical textbook on abortion ; we leave >>out most of the history and the different political views on the subject and >>just talk about the procedure itself and maybe have a single paragraph at the >>end sating something about access to the procedure and that risks doctors >>face when they choose to specialize in this area. >There are some aspects, even of technical education, >that require understanding of politics, that require >ethical information. A book limiting itself to the >pure technical gestures to apply is *bad*. Very bad. >This is particularly true in the biological domain you >cite. Teaching abortion just from the technical >procedure is an error. If only because abortion is >allowed in some places, not allowed in others, and >this should be known. Also because an abortion is a >terrible act for most women to undergo, and *no* >doctor should know it only from the tech point of >view. He should be aware of the psychological impact >of such a gesture, if he wants to propose and to >proceed with such an act with the physical and >psychological consent of the mother-to-be. Also >because he should be aware of all the limits to such >an act from a religious point of view. Medical ethics is important in medical education. Thus any medical textbook should speak of (or refer to) discussion of the ethical concerns of a controversial procedure. Abortion definitely qualifies for this (even though /I/ have no ethical concerns about it). >Offering bare technical teaching is wrong. >Similarly, in agriculture, it makes no sense to *just* >understand how fertilization works, if you do not >understand the pollution it creates, the CAP rules >about N uses and the incentives. Just providing the >tech info is just giving enough information for >survival, not for thinking and making good decisions. Similarly, the potential pollutive effects of agriculture are necessary for any complete education in agriculture (although I don't know if there's a professional history of this as there is in the case of medicine). These examples are not the same thing as creationism. -- Toby