To me, as Byers suggests, we need to embrace _un_-certainty
This was a good article, if a bit lengthy. We need to create model-makers and thinkers. Instead at times it looks more like we are indoctrinating kids in how to have the social traits and attitudes of the elite than how to think for themselves.
It seems like this view of physics is exactly what John Cook was talking about as the sophomore level of understanding, where questioning the foundations is correct, but misguided, because of the overall utility of the approach.
Interesting ideas but I think his physics examples aren't all that great. Last time I looked, Euclidean geometry matched the world as I know it. The world that I can see and touch is Euclidean for all practical purposes, so I think it makes sense to call Euclidean geometry just "geometry" and to teach that as the foundation. Additionally, I remember in intro physics I was well aware that frictionless surfaces, massless pulleys, and pure vacuums didn't exist. The point is that we can often assume they do and still get reasonably accurate results.
I'm a mechanical engineer rather than a pure scientist, so that probably has alot to do with my opinion.
3 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 15.7 ms ] threadThis was a good article, if a bit lengthy. We need to create model-makers and thinkers. Instead at times it looks more like we are indoctrinating kids in how to have the social traits and attitudes of the elite than how to think for themselves.
http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2011/01/25/coming-full-circle/
I think I agree though, that the timeline of science isn't the most important aspect of introductory/foundational teachings.
I'm a mechanical engineer rather than a pure scientist, so that probably has alot to do with my opinion.