Science, evidence

[JetLeg]

Hi.


Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that
1) In undergraduate science textbooks, the evidence is not given for each and every claim.
2) In undergraduate science textbooks, even when the evidence is given, one cannot look at the evidence, and draw his own conclusions. The evidence is not detailed enough.


So, I understand that it is pretty impossible to supply the evidence for each and every claim, but yet -

1) Is not this an unhealthy attitude to develop critical thinking?
2) How is one supposed to think of claims that the textbooks says they are true, without providing the evidence? Thinking backwards? Believing the claim, and trying to think what can the evidence be? Another way?

[laca]

Yes, it is an unhealthy attitude to develop critical thinking. I mostly blame the overcrowded teaching plan. There seems to be a lack of interest on the teachers' part also.

[roger]

I can't remember ever having lab in science, doing experiments, any of that.

If only some school, somewhere, would have lab.

[I Ratant]

Some of my classes in engineering had no "hands-on" experiments by we budding engineers, the teacher would prepare the subject, and a technician conduct the test.
One of my physics teachers though was quite eager to show us how to think outside the box, and do the experiments for ourselves.

[technoextreme]

So does anyone else get the odd feeling that this is just another desperate attempt to prove that science is a cult? An interesting one at that but most good universities actually have multiple books on a single topic so that you can evaluate information. Most of the time the information is too much to fit into a single textbook.

[laca]

So does anyone else get the odd feeling that this is just another desperate attempt to prove that science is a cult?

Nope, not so far. Let's see how it goes...

[MG1962]

Well I guess the counter is - if these science text books are all wrong, and the students go out into their fields. How could they expand the body of knowledge. Or worse as in engineering. If the text books are wrong, bridges fall, buildings collapse cars fail, cat and dogs begin living together..............

[fuelair]

Science textbooks (especially from elementary through undergraduate) do not have room to present all the evidences for all the facts that may be covered. Some items require math steps that require a book all by themselves, others would require that you have a background of heavy weight before you could follow them. You start out accepting, you wind up either having basic knowledge OR going on to understanding. And you are lucky if you can follow this in one area of science much less several.

[themusicteacher]

JetLeg, if I am to take this particular "issue" of yours seriously, I'd have to say your ire should be directed at curriculum in general. Curriculum, as it is conceived in practically all educational endeavors in this country (US), is intentionally designed for control and reductivism. My professional opinions of curriculum aside, there is much that is missing from textbooks (a moneymaking scheme of monumental proportions). However, I would say that any of the information contained in most textbooks is referenced. If one wanted to, they could access those works and provide them as supplements to the text. If there is true concern on your part for the children, I suggest you go directly to your school board with evidence that strongly suggests the information contained in the text is somehow faulty.

Certainly, we should be encouraging good scientific practices and not simply teaching out of the text. That is generally what labs are for but, unfortunately, most public school labs are woefully underfunded and ridiculously restrictive. Add to that reductive legislation such as NCLB (see the connection between curriculum and legislation?) and we've made real-life experiments and the like difficult to include in a basic education.

[Mako]

JetLeg


From my experience, textbooks assume that you're familiar with the more basic material required to continue your education. I'd say it's a reasonable expectation.

[athon]

1) In undergraduate science textbooks, the evidence is not given for each and every claim.

No. I'm not sure what benefit it would provide - it would either mean text books that were enormous, or a large number of text books students would be required to purchase. It would also mean courses would need to actively evaluate each and every claim made. In the end, it would amount to little difference. Students would be better off understanding that text books provide a consensus of knowledge...which (at least in my undergrad, over twelve years ago) many are taught.

2) In undergraduate science textbooks, even when the evidence is given, one cannot look at the evidence, and draw his own conclusions. The evidence is not detailed enough.

What detail would be enough, in your opinion? Science isn't built on the backs of single papers, but rather ongoing discussion. To describe the history of each and every claim made, students would be required to attend university for more than just a few years. And again, to what benefit?

1) Is not this an unhealthy attitude to develop critical thinking?

Not at all. Critical thinking is not about the volume of evidence, but the ability to evaluate claims based on a set of values, and correct your views as more evidence comes to light.

2) How is one supposed to think of claims that the textbooks says they are true, without providing the evidence? Thinking backwards? Believing the claim, and trying to think what can the evidence be? Another way?

By forming a level of confidence in how likely it is that these claims are going to be true. This is based on a number of things, such as a sharing of ideals within the academic community, the likelihood that the information will be read and assessed by a variety of people, the level of agreement between that and other texts etc.

Athon

[Raze]

Hi.


Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that
1) In undergraduate science textbooks, the evidence is not given for each and every claim.

I don't know how you COULD give evidence for every claim, since several conclusions drawn by science involve ideal experiments that can never be preformed.

But I had a lab in every single science class I have been in, and a great deal of the physical results that were tested shown to be in the ball park of the claims.

2) In undergraduate science textbooks, even when the evidence is given, one cannot look at the evidence, and draw his own conclusions. The evidence is not detailed enough.

I can't say that I agree with this, from my own early education in science. From Newton's laws to the particle-wave duality of light, we did the experiments and found them to generally be just about correct.



So, I understand that it is pretty impossible to supply the evidence for each and every claim, but yet -

1) Is not this an unhealthy attitude to develop critical thinking?
2) How is one supposed to think of claims that the textbooks says they are true, without providing the evidence? Thinking backwards? Believing the claim, and trying to think what can the evidence be? Another way?


I totally agree that hands on experimentation is necessary. But some of the experiments cannot be preformed by first or second year undergraduates, and a few assumptions must be taken by faith. But more general results can be derived from a couple of basic assumptions, so theory can at least be shown to be internally consistent when experimentation is not available. For example, the results from special relativity can be derived in class with only basic assumptions, like the constancy of the speed of light in inertial frames.

Regardless, my intro chemistry classes and intro physics classes were very lab heavy. I suppose it's not that way everywhere, but I can't understand why not. It's not like these first and second year experiments are all that expensive.



ETA- Are you guys really saying that you didn't do labs in your intro science classes? Really? I find that SO hard to believe, since a BIG part of early science education is learning what significant figures are and where they come from, which DIRECTLY involves taking measurements. If there is a school anywhere in the world that is neglecting the fundamental basics of actually preforming tests in an intro science class, how in the world do they keep turning out competent graduates? In General Chemistry you learn the names of all the basic instruments; you do Qualitative Analysis; you use Bunsen burners, crucibles, you do titration... in intro physics you play with cars on tracks, you play with sound waves, radio tubes, slinkys, circuit boards and lasers- all doing experiments... I mean... REALLY? The assumption of this thread seems a tad bit ridiculous to me.

[quadraginta]

Hi.


Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that
1) In undergraduate science textbooks, the evidence is not given for each and every claim.
2) In undergraduate science textbooks, even when the evidence is given, one cannot look at the evidence, and draw his own conclusions. The evidence is not detailed enough.


So, I understand that it is pretty impossible to supply the evidence for each and every claim, but yet -

1) Is not this an unhealthy attitude to develop critical thinking?
2) How is one supposed to think of claims that the textbooks says they are true, without providing the evidence? Thinking backwards? Believing the claim, and trying to think what can the evidence be? Another way?

Libraries? Reference material? Self-directed research?

Textbooks and classes provide a place to start learning, or perhaps a place to learn how to learn.

At least in theory and best practice at any rate.

Once the toehold and the learning skills are provided the student, if properly taught, should pursue further evidence on their own. There's no plausible way to present everyone with everything in a classroom overview.

That's not what they're for.

[Fiona]

Interesting OP. A couple of things occurred to me but I am very willing to be corrected on any of them since neither science nor education is my field.

I have friends who have degrees in hard science, mostly chemistry. What they have told me is that at each stage in their education they worked hard to learn what was taught: then when they progressed to the next stage they were more or less told that everything they had learned to date was wrong. From what they said this was largely due to the fact that they needed simple models to grasp certain basic ideas which could then be built on: and I have the impression that to some extent it follows how science developed. They get ideas which were earlier models (like for example,shells of electrons round positive nuclei) and then later they are presented with the information which showed that those ideas were not adequate: and given a new model, which is in its turn discarded or modified later in the course.

This means that for those (like me) who did not pursue the subject very far, we are left with notions which are not that useful in understanding science as it is. That requires further study. But that is no different from any other subject in terms of content. Labs are used even at an early stage and those are there to give students an idea of the method: the experiments are chosen to illustrate points which can be explained by the model the student has: but the method is sound.

I am aware that the "two cultures" split is still relevant. Critical thinking is not overtly taught in science (it is not so well taught in other fields either, though it has a bigger place). But this experience of learning that what seemed to explain so much last year is inadequate should, by itself, teach a critical approach to theory if all goes well: at least to some extent.

The content that students have to learn is vast. I have often wondered if it might be better to teach in this way much more openly: so we could teach science as history of science by making it clear that this is what we are doing. But that is my own particular bent: it seems to work ok for those who like the current style. I would like some focus on history and philosophy of science alongside it but I am conscious that there may not be time certainly at undergraduate level: or perhaps we do not value it enough

There are dangers in the approach because there is a tendency to encourage acceptance of authority, arguably: but as I have said before, there is authority which is arbitrary and there is authority based on skill and knowledge and real expertise. The latter is valuable and we must trust something else we must reinvent everything for ourselves in every field. We have not time nor would this get us anywhere. We do not ask young children to discover danger through direct experiment: we keep them safe from trucks and fire and very long falls. We do so on the basis that we have knowledge and they do not: I cannot see anything wrong with that. And we give them explanations appropriate to their age and capacity to understand.

If the argument is that we continue that method into the adult life of the student beyond where we should then perhaps we do in some instances: but I do not think that process can or should be wholly avoided.

As others have said: the information in support of the ideas is out there: it is not hidden or so arcane as to be inaccessible to the determined student (or lay person). It is reasonable to rely on what we are taught for two reasons:

1. we have a scientific community who have mechanisms for testing the ideas:and those mechanisms (replication; peer review etc) work. Not instantly, and not perfectly, but they do work. Of course scientists are human and they have their obstinacy and their irrationality like the rest of us: but there are enough of them that wrong ideas are eventually overturned and the scientific method actually uses those weaknesses to good effect: ego will lead people to challenge existing theory just as soon as it will lead them to defend their own pet ideas beyond what is reasonable.

2. There is no reason to suppose that scientists are intent on misleading the student or the rest of us. Like most people they would rather do a good job than a bad one: they would rather be right than wrong. Again this can be undermined: pressure to publish is greater than it used to be and I do not think that is a good thing: academic tenure is rare too, and that undermines the enterprise as well, imo. But on the whole those are not sufficient to destroy this robust method.

Scientism is a problem: but it is not really a problem within the scientific community. Most of what is wrong there stems from the same tendency which leads to celebrities expounding on stuff they know nothing about: and that is our own uncritical belief that those with a platform in one field have something to say in all others.

I do think it would be helpful to teach some philosophy and rhetoric to everyone at a quite early stage: I think the shift from "education" to "training" is regrettable. But I do not think those things can be laid at the door of science: look rather to business and the drive to "efficiency" which "knows the price of everything and the value of nothing".

[Raze]

Every single time in a science class we covered a model that wasn't as precise as the currently accepted one, my professors gave us that disclaimer. Usually something like "this isn't exactly what happens, but it about as close as we can give it to you so that you can understand."

I suppose my first experience with that was in General Chemistry studying the atom. Clearly quantum mechanics/ nuclear physics is not something a freshmen in his/her first science class is going to do that well in, so the currently accepted model of the atom was not given. However, the professor explained to us that it wasn't the "cutting edge" model professional scientists currently use.


It is my opinion that if a science teacher isn't explaining the limitations of the material they are presenting (as best as can be done under the circumstances), they are not really earning their money.

[Careyp74]

I can't believe I am about to do this but...

I think Jetlag has a good point. First, lets look at his point. It isn't that ALL the evidence should be shown, it is that the current textbooks and learning methods don't foster critical thinking.

I am not saying that the point is valid, but let's keep on track with this thread.

Now, my counter argument. Text books are considered by students to be peer reviewed texts. Going through school, I trust that the information is correct, and anything that I don't find plausible I research.

[Dum_Spero_Spiro]

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that
1) In undergraduate science textbooks, the evidence is not given for each and every claim.
2) In undergraduate science textbooks, even when the evidence is given, one cannot look at the evidence, and draw his own conclusions. The evidence is not detailed enough.


don't you think that it is your duty to be sure you're not wrong before
you base observations (below) on a foundation you're not sure is
built right ?


So, I understand that it is pretty impossible to supply the evidence for each and every claim, but yet -

1) Is not this an unhealthy attitude to develop critical thinking?
2) How is one supposed to think of claims that the textbooks says they are true, without providing the evidence? Thinking backwards? Believing the claim, and trying to think what can the evidence be? Another way?

critical thinking cannot be "developed" at the undergraduate level.
Developmentally, it's just too late. If a K-12 graduate doesn't have
critical thinking skills then he/she never will.

[Dum_Spero_Spiro]

So does anyone else get the odd feeling that this is just another desperate attempt to prove that science is a cult?

Either that or yet another attempt to displace responsibility for one's
inability to learn.

[Dum_Spero_Spiro]

I think the shift from "education" to "training" is regrettable.

regrettable but it is what the "customer" wants. Over the last 20 years
I've seen the situation deteriorate to the ridiculous level where 3/4 of
the students I see think that memorizing problems and their solution
is "learning" and deem tests that are designed to gauge their understanding
as unfair because they present them with problems they've never seen
before.

I see more and more students who behave like someone who aspires to
writing works worth a Nobel in Literature without knowledge of grammar
and/or syntax. And when they realize this they displace the blame on
the subject, the book, the test, the professor, the etc., etc....on anyone
else but themselves...fuggedaboutit...

[shawmutt]

Hi.


Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that
1) In undergraduate science textbooks, the evidence is not given for each and every claim.
2) In undergraduate science textbooks, even when the evidence is given, one cannot look at the evidence, and draw his own conclusions. The evidence is not detailed enough.

What are your top 3 examples?

[JetLeg]

By the way, it is spelled JetLeg

[Raze]

regrettable but it is what the "customer" wants. Over the last 20 years
I've seen the situation deteriorate to the ridiculous level where 3/4 of
the students I see think that memorizing problems and their solution
is "learning" and deem tests that are designed to gauge their understanding
as unfair because they present them with problems they've never seen
before.

No kidding. But that is how you weed students out. You can get away with a passing grade doing that in the intro science classes, but no way in the upper division ones. Case in point, I just got my text book for E and M, and there are zero solutions for exercises in it- because nearly all of the exercises are of the form "prove such and such."


I see more and more students who behave like someone who aspires to
writing works worth a Nobel in Literature without knowledge of grammar
and/or syntax.

*cough, cough* http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=151015


And when they realize this they displace the blame on
the subject, the book, the test, the professor, the etc., etc....on anyone
else but themselves...fuggedaboutit...

When I was in intro physics, there was an engineering major in my class who kept blaming her D's in English on the instructor and the fact that she was "an engineer, not a writer," while I easily earned my A's. She also blamed her bad grade in Calculus III on our instructor who "just glosses over the explanations" while I got my A in that class, too.

You are completely correct. Instead of studying, she whined. I imagine she has changed her major by now.


But to me, this is not the fault of the educational system- in fact, it is the educational system doing it's job. It isn't just about the material. It's also about weeding out the less intelligent people or the people who simply refuse to put in the effort to learn the material. Who wants a heart surgeon who failed physics?




ETA-

What are your top 3 examples?


Good call.

[Dum_Spero_Spiro]

No kidding. But that is how you weed students out. You can get away with a passing grade doing that in the intro science classes, but no way in the upper division ones.


except it's getting harder and harder to weed students out. Pressure comes
from above, in explicit and implicit forms, to increase the retention rate
and decrease the time to graduation.

And, with the rampant lingo about these fabled jobs of the 21st Century that
require a college degree pushing more and more kids to seek such
a degree (only to find that they need an attention span longer than
5 minutes to achieve their goal) the situation in college will pretty soon
become untenable unless K-12 all of a sudden starts putting out
kids ready for college. And I kinda doubt that :(


Who wants a heart surgeon who failed physics?


how would you know it ? :D

[Raze]

except it's getting harder and harder to weed students out. Pressure comes
from above, in explicit and implicit forms, to increase the retention rate
and decrease the time to graduation.

And, with the rampant lingo about these fabled jobs of the 21st Century that
require a college degree pushing more and more kids to seek such
a degree (only to find that they need an attention span longer than
5 minutes to achieve their goal) the situation in college will pretty soon
become untenable unless K-12 all of a sudden starts putting out
kids ready for college. And I kinda doubt that :(

Yeah but how can you fake technical knowledge? I guess maybe you might be right to an extent, but highly doubt they'll start pumping out physics students who can't do math, etc.



how would you know it ? :D

You don't, but usually the curriculum requires they pass the course.

The question, of course, is are the versions they are taking rigorous enough to weed people out?

[Fishstick]

Who wants a heart surgeon who failed physics?

l.

You know what they call a surgeon who barely scraped by in class and graduated last?

Doctor.

[Raze]

You know what they call a surgeon who barely scraped by in class and graduated last?

Doctor.

I don't know about med school, but what I have been told about graduate school for PhD candidates from several professors is that "barely scraping by" amounts to finishing with no grades lower than B (after any retakes, naturally) and, of course, after contributing meaningful research to the field of study- i.e. contributing to Human Kind's knowledge of that subject.

Now, that being said, there are certainly PhD's or MD's who speak about fields they didn't specialize in as if they are an authority, or those who slack off and lose their edge on the knowledge after getting tenure or teaching elementary stuff for many years. But realistically, anyone who get's a PhD in a field of science is going to be very qualified in their narrow specialization at least for a short period of time.


If it were so easy to get one, why do so few in the population do it?

[paximperium]

You know what they call a surgeon who barely scraped by in class and graduated last?

Doctor.
That joke has been around forever and is suppose to be, "You know what they call someone who barely scraped by med school and graduated last?
Doctor."

If you are in the US, it is not easy to be a practicing doctor. They are standards. You have the US Medical Licensing Exams(Part 1 through 3) and then you have to complete a Residency and then pass the board exams for your specialty for that before you can call yourself a surgeon.

[Stacy Head]

Undergraduate Nursing programs (RN BSN) are implementing Critical Thinking 101 as a requirement.
Post grad nursing then requires more advanced classes in critical thinking lumped under Philosophy.

[JetLeg]

Interesting OP. A couple of things occurred to me but I am very willing to be corrected on any of them since neither science nor education is my field.

I have friends who have degrees in hard science, mostly chemistry. What they have told me is that at each stage in their education they worked hard to learn what was taught: then when they progressed to the next stage they were more or less told that everything they had learned to date was wrong. From what they said this was largely due to the fact that they needed simple models to grasp certain basic ideas which could then be built on: and I have the impression that to some extent it follows how science developed. They get ideas which were earlier models (like for example,shells of electrons round positive nuclei) and then later they are presented with the information which showed that those ideas were not adequate: and given a new model, which is in its turn discarded or modified later in the course.

This means that for those (like me) who did not pursue the subject very far, we are left with notions which are not that useful in understanding science as it is. That requires further study. But that is no different from any other subject in terms of content. Labs are used even at an early stage and those are there to give students an idea of the method: the experiments are chosen to illustrate points which can be explained by the model the student has: but the method is sound.

I am aware that the "two cultures" split is still relevant. Critical thinking is not overtly taught in science (it is not so well taught in other fields either, though it has a bigger place). But this experience of learning that what seemed to explain so much last year is inadequate should, by itself, teach a critical approach to theory if all goes well: at least to some extent.

The content that students have to learn is vast. I have often wondered if it might be better to teach in this way much more openly: so we could teach science as history of science by making it clear that this is what we are doing. But that is my own particular bent: it seems to work ok for those who like the current style. I would like some focus on history and philosophy of science alongside it but I am conscious that there may not be time certainly at undergraduate level: or perhaps we do not value it enough

There are dangers in the approach because there is a tendency to encourage acceptance of authority, arguably: but as I have said before, there is authority which is arbitrary and there is authority based on skill and knowledge and real expertise. The latter is valuable and we must trust something else we must reinvent everything for ourselves in every field. We have not time nor would this get us anywhere. We do not ask young children to discover danger through direct experiment: we keep them safe from trucks and fire and very long falls. We do so on the basis that we have knowledge and they do not: I cannot see anything wrong with that. And we give them explanations appropriate to their age and capacity to understand.



Ok.
Here is my problem with it :

Suppose I read in a molecular biology textbook about the structure of DNA. And about the forces that keep the molecule connected together. I am given some evidence, but far less than the book tells me.

I think that humans can access knowledge in two ways - thought, or belief. Since I wasn't given the reasons for this, I can only believe that it is true. I cannot integrate this knowledge with other facts that I know. And the fact that it was written in a book by researchers, and not taken out of the blue, doesn't change much.

Or another example - the krebs cycle. How can one learn it in more a meaningful way than memorisation? I think that because not enough evidence is given, one cannot really integrate it with other facts.

[DC]

thats why i always check back in the Bible if those claim from science are correct. they arent :jaw-dropp

[drkitten]

Ok.
Here is my problem with it :

Suppose I read in a molecular biology textbook about the structure of DNA. And about the forces that keep the molecule connected together. I am given some evidence, but far less than the book tells me.

Or another example - the krebs cycle. How can one learn it in more a meaningful way than memorisation?

Read another book? Seriously.... any decent textbook has the references section in it for a reason. The professionals who work on the Krebs cycle have probably read hundreds of different papers on it, if not thousands. The biology students who need to pass the final in December are not going to have that much time, especially as there's so much other material there. But if you care enough about the Krebs cycle to want to get more information on it, there's a lot more there that couldn't be put into the textbook for simple reasons of economics and page count.

You're doing the equivalent of criticizing a first-year language textbook because it "only" develops a vocabulary of 500 words or so. Golly jeepers, after taking only a semester of college French, you don't have the skills to direct a light opera or take a physiology class. Heck, you barely have the skills to survive a road trip from Paris to Nice (what's the French word for "iPod"? How do you say "I need to make a collect call to the United States?") Of course, the French department knows this, which is why they offer French 102, and French 201, and French 202, and probably a dozen upper division courses, including "how to direct a light opera" (French 553).

If you want to know more about the Krebs cycle, read a book.

[Raze]

Ok.
Here is my problem with it :

Suppose I read in a molecular biology textbook about the structure of DNA. And about the forces that keep the molecule connected together. I am given some evidence, but far less than the book tells me.

I think that humans can access knowledge in two ways - thought, or belief. Since I wasn't given the reasons for this, I can only believe that it is true. I cannot integrate this knowledge with other facts that I know. And the fact that it was written in a book by researchers, and not taken out of the blue, doesn't change much.

Or another example - the krebs cycle. How can one learn it in more a meaningful way than memorisation? I think that because not enough evidence is given, one cannot really integrate it with other facts.

Luckily for nearly every person living in the West, taking one course or only the basic courses on a scientific subject and believing all of it by faith is completely optional. Even if you do not major in science you can go to a library, learn the material, and learn how to preform most of the experiments on your own. You can do it just like the pioneers of the particular scientific field you are interested in did.

The only limitation is your own lack of motivation to do it.

Alternatively, you can enroll in a university and major in a specific field of scientific study, where you will be eventually exposed to these experiments yourself.



Either way, it will require a very large amount of work and time.


That is the problem. People are unwilling to put in the work and the time to see if the theories really conform to experiment. But as I have said throughout this thread, I have seen for myself than many of them do. All it takes is for you to stop being an armchair critic of science and start doing science.

Instead of watching TGIF on Friday, open up a math book. Instead of sitting down and watching the big game on Sunday, buy a magnet, some wires, voltmeters and circuitry equipment and do some tests to see if the foundations that led to Maxwell's equations are right.

Et cetera.

[JetLeg]

You're doing the equivalent of criticizing a first-year language textbook because it "only" develops a vocabulary of 500 words or so. Golly jeepers, after taking only a semester of college French, you don't have the skills to direct a light opera or take a physiology class. Heck, you barely have the skills to survive a road trip from Paris to Nice (what's the French word for "iPod"? How do you say "I need to make a collect call to the United States?") Of course, the French department knows this, which is why they offer French 102, and French 201, and French 202, and probably a dozen upper division courses, including "how to direct a light opera" (French 553).



No.
All the information that is given to me by a first-year languaget textbook is true. I do not need to do research to establish that it's true.

But in a molecular biology textbook I am asked to accept something without evidence - which I shouldn't.

[Fiona]

No.
All the information that is given to me by a first-year languaget textbook is true. I do not need to do research to establish that it's true.


How do you know?

[drkitten]

All the information that is given to me by a first-year languaget textbook is true.

Unsurprisingly, you're wrong again.

The information given to you by a first-year language textbook is usually oversimplified, inaccurate, and outdated. A good example of that in French is the ne ... pas construction for negation, which every first year student learns, and which is almost never used in conversational French (and hasn't been for thirty years at least. (Instead, the 'ne' gets dropped, an example cited in almost every linguistics book on the process of grammaticization.) An example of that in German is the use of the word "Fraulein" as a form of address for unmarried women (akin to "Miss" in English), which again is something you might hear someone's grandmother use. Even the word "Miss" itself, which is still presented in most first year English textbooks, is outdated -- no one in the States uses it as a form of address any more (although it does get used some in the UK). In fact, few people in the States use honorifics at all.

[JetLeg]

Ok. But when I am given information in a language textbook, I can think of it in meaningful ways, rather just memorising it. If I am told about the Krebs circle, or DNA structure how can I think about it in more meanigful ways than memorising.

[drkitten]

Ok. But when I am given information in a language textbook, I can think of it in meaningful ways, rather just memorising it.

Ah, I see. You have bad study skills, therefore it's the discipline's fault.

If I am told about the Krebs circle, or DNA structure how can I think about it in more meanigful ways than memorising.

Tie it to other things that you know. Ask questions about it of the teacher. And, for that matter, read more. No one said that the textbook was all you were permitted to read.

[technoextreme]

Ok.
Here is my problem with it :

Suppose I read in a molecular biology textbook about the structure of DNA. And about the forces that keep the molecule connected together. I am given some evidence, but far less than the book tells me.

I think that humans can access knowledge in two ways - thought, or belief. Since I wasn't given the reasons for this, I can only believe that it is true. I cannot integrate this knowledge with other facts that I know. And the fact that it was written in a book by researchers, and not taken out of the blue, doesn't change much.

Or another example - the krebs cycle. How can one learn it in more a meaningful way than memorisation? I think that because not enough evidence is given, one cannot really integrate it with other facts.
Well congratulations. Your reading the wrong freaking book to learn about the forces that keep the molecule connected together.

[lomiller]

There is so much knowledge and debate contained within the (hopefully) consensus opinions expressed in undergraduate textbooks that it could take a lifetime to fully understand them. In general, questioning this consensus plays into the hands of the wack-a-doodles, not the skeptics.

That doesn’t mean the contents and assumptions in those textbooks are above being questioned, but legitimate questioning is well beyond the capacity of an undergraduate student. At some point if they specialize enough they may get there, but these textbooks are aimed at giving a working knowledge of a range of topics rather then the in depth highly specific knowledge required to ask such questions.

Another way to put it is that contrary to what some people believe appeal to legitimate authority is not a logical fallacy. Only appeal to an unqualified authority is a logical fallacy. The critical thinking skills that need to be learned are what constitutes a legitimate appeal to authority and how to identify who is/isn’t a legitimate authority.

[drkitten]

There is so much knowledge and debate contained within the (hopefully) consensus opinions expressed in undergraduate textbooks that it could take a lifetime to fully understand them. In general, questioning this consensus plays into the hands of the wack-a-doodles, not the skeptics.

That doesn’t mean the contents and assumptions in those textbooks are above being questioned, but legitimate questioning is well beyond the capacity of an undergraduate student.

This is not strictly speaking true. There are indeed exceptional undergraduates who have the skills and background knowledge --- or even the straight-up insight --- to question the contents and assumptions in standard textbooks. Greg Chaitin was one. Indeed, since there are a lot of very very bad textbooks out there (a classic example being the creationist piece of tripe Of Pandas and People), one could easily find a case where a teacher had, deliberately or through incompetence, chosen a textbook that was out of date, oversimplified, or simply wrong.

It doesn't take a lot of work to refute Pandas. It also doesn't take a lot of work to refute a first year language book. In either case, you simply need the right sources (i.e. a friend who speaks the language well and who laughs at you when you try to use the word "Fraulein," a quick trip to Paris on vacation with your family, or ten minutes Googling the bacterial flagellum.)

But, of course, that's the key thing. If you're going to challenge your textbooks, you need a further source from which to draw your challenge -- you can't just make stuff up. If you read a molecular biology book and you don't understand it, the problem isn't with the book, but with you. If you read a molecular biology book and you disagree with it, the problem again is (with extremely high probability) with you, not the book. And if you can't articulate a your disagreement, that probability goes up even further.

You don't have to accept anything on faith if you don't want to. But what you do not get to do is to reject it on faith. As a math professor of mine once yelled at the class, "You don't get to use your intuition until you've developed it."

[Ron_Tomkins]

The physicist Richard Feynman was one of the great critics of the mediocrity in many of the science textbooks that have been used in schools. You should read his writing on this. I believe it's on "Surely you're joking Mr Feynman".

[Almo]

In undergraduate physics, we were encouraged to question everything, and had labs where were tested what we were taught. We didn't test EVERYTHING, but we did a lot. I even built a Michelson interferometer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson_interferometer) and verified that light does not in fact travel through ether. Do not underestimate how sensitive these damned things are. It took us weeks to see the fringes on white light.

I never did bust out the Cavendish experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment) though. Wish I had.

[lomiller]

This is not strictly speaking true. There are indeed exceptional undergraduates who have the skills and background knowledge --- or even the straight-up insight --- to question the contents and assumptions in standard textbooks. Greg Chaitin was one. Indeed, since there are a lot of very very bad textbooks out there (a classic example being the creationist piece of tripe Of Pandas and People), one could easily find a case where a teacher had, deliberately or through incompetence, chosen a textbook that was out of date, oversimplified, or simply wrong.

It doesn't take a lot of work to refute Pandas. It also doesn't take a lot of work to refute a first year language book. In either case, you simply need the right sources (i.e. a friend who speaks the language well and who laughs at you when you try to use the word "Fraulein," a quick trip to Paris on vacation with your family, or ten minutes Googling the bacterial flagellum.)

But, of course, that's the key thing. If you're going to challenge your textbooks, you need a further source from which to draw your challenge -- you can't just make stuff up. If you read a molecular biology book and you don't understand it, the problem isn't with the book, but with you. If you read a molecular biology book and you disagree with it, the problem again is (with extremely high probability) with you, not the book. And if you can't articulate a your disagreement, that probability goes up even further.

You don't have to accept anything on faith if you don't want to. But what you do not get to do is to reject it on faith. As a math professor of mine once yelled at the class, "You don't get to use your intuition until you've developed it."


I can’t really speak to the point about Chaitin, but Panda’s is clearly a case where the information being presented doesn’t agree with the real scientific consensus on the issue. In terms of my pervious post Panda’s should not be treated as a legitimate authority, and the key critical thinking skill involved is recognizing that fact. There are no doubt many other textbooks out there that exhibit this to some degree.

This differs significantly from a case where the textbook does accurately reflect the science surrounding the issue. In that case the way to question it, isn’t to address the textbook but address the science itself. That, in turn, means publishing a paper significant and compelling enough to change the minds of the specialists in that field. It may not be impossible for an undergraduate to publish such a paper, but it’s exceedingly rare.

[blutoski]

Hi.


Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that
1) In undergraduate science textbooks, the evidence is not given for each and every claim.

Actually, that's probably equally true of all textbooks. Or at least: the supporting data is mostly omitted, and you're not being asked to reproduce the results cited.



2) In undergraduate science textbooks, even when the evidence is given, one cannot look at the evidence, and draw his own conclusions. The evidence is not detailed enough.

Again: that's probably equally true at all levels. But 'not detailed enough' is vague. For example, if a text cited papers, this would not provide you with the same level of detail you would have if you were to observe the experiments.




So, I understand that it is pretty impossible to supply the evidence for each and every claim, but yet -

1) Is not this an unhealthy attitude to develop critical thinking?

Not really.


2) How is one supposed to think of claims that the textbooks says they are true, without providing the evidence? Thinking backwards? Believing the claim, and trying to think what can the evidence be? Another way?

My selection from the list is "Another way." Specifically: using critical thinking skills.

These related questions appear to be based on a false premise or unreasonable expectation: critical thinking does not require rigidly verifying every premise in an argument before accepting it as probably true. (Neither does skepticism.)

Critical thinking is about weighing arguments and premises systematically and fairly.

I don't think this is just my opinion: there is no way for a person to build a worldview from scratch. I believe attempting to do so would lead to terribly wasted time and effort, and perhaps even madness.

A nice thing about being a skeptic is that in principle, there is no embarassment about being wrong about something if we came to believe it through a reasonable process. Accepting the contents of a textbook as probably true until information comes to light that suggests it is incorrect is not necessarily an example of thinking uncritically.

If the reasoning was, "Textbooks are never wrong," then this would be poor critical thinking, since it's an indefensible in light of abundant counterexamples.

If the reasoning was, "Textbooks probably present a mostly accurate set of facts," then this would be better critical thinking, as a good case can be made that it is true.

[fuelair]

except it's getting harder and harder to weed students out. Pressure comes
from above, in explicit and implicit forms, to increase the retention rate
and decrease the time to graduation.

And, with the rampant lingo about these fabled jobs of the 21st Century that
require a college degree pushing more and more kids to seek such
a degree (only to find that they need an attention span longer than
5 minutes to achieve their goal) the situation in college will pretty soon
become untenable unless K-12 all of a sudden starts putting out
kids ready for college. And I kinda doubt that :( :D Personal experience I'm sure (Chem, Chem Honors and Integrated here - no grade under 50% even if never done/turned in, get to retake assessments over and over again, no penalty or action by admins if caught cheating...........etc.)

[Hokulele]

Unsurprisingly, you're wrong again.

The information given to you by a first-year language textbook is usually oversimplified, inaccurate, and outdated. A good example of that in French is the ne ... pas construction for negation, which every first year student learns, and which is almost never used in conversational French (and hasn't been for thirty years at least. (Instead, the 'ne' gets dropped, an example cited in almost every linguistics book on the process of grammaticization.) An example of that in German is the use of the word "Fraulein" as a form of address for unmarried women (akin to "Miss" in English), which again is something you might hear someone's grandmother use. Even the word "Miss" itself, which is still presented in most first year English textbooks, is outdated -- no one in the States uses it as a form of address any more (although it does get used some in the UK). In fact, few people in the States use honorifics at all.


An even better example is first year Japanese. New students are taught a very formal, rather stiff version of the language, something you would never hear spoken other than by a young person to an adult in a position of authority (which, in most introductory Japanese classes, is exactly the case). Although any person fluent in Japanese could understand you, it would sound very odd, especially if you were male and over the age of 18 speaking to a female or a subordinate.

[MattC]

Hi.


Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that
1) In undergraduate science textbooks, the evidence is not given for each and every claim.
2) In undergraduate science textbooks, even when the evidence is given, one cannot look at the evidence, and draw his own conclusions. The evidence is not detailed enough.


So, I understand that it is pretty impossible to supply the evidence for each and every claim, but yet -

1) Is not this an unhealthy attitude to develop critical thinking?
2) How is one supposed to think of claims that the textbooks says they are true, without providing the evidence? Thinking backwards? Believing the claim, and trying to think what can the evidence be? Another way?

"undergraduate textbooks" encompasses a great deal of books with vastly different priorities and audiences. The textbook used for an upper-level quantum physics course will employ vastly different language, reasoning and imagery than will the physics book for the first-year Introduction to Physics - one is designed to familiarize students with the basics, the other to elaborate upon a very specific and highly specialized discipline of study.

To provide an example from my subject (criminology) will require a bit of background information. At my university, the basic criminology course that everyone is required to take is called "Crime in America" - it's exactly what it sounds like, an overview of crime... in America. I'm sure none of you saw it coming. The purpose of the course is to afford a brief rundown upon the myriad factors and constituent components both of crime and the legal systems that seek to control it. Further classes within the university go into greater detail about both crimes and the systems that attempt to contain it.

Being such a general class, the professor lecturing the course chose to begin by presenting us with something (from the book he'd written) called the "ice cream metaphor." It's very simply retold - "murder rates go up when ice cream sales increase." In the context he was striving to create in his book, the metaphor was designed to explain that the vast majority of American crime is linked to social and geographical conditions (in this case, heat - murder rates and ice cream sales both go up in the summertime). The metaphor is also open to many other interpretations, but presented that simply it is open to many attacks as well. I vividly remember sparking a discussion about what constituted "ice cream" in that context - ice cream comes in many forms, and I was simply curious about which ones were and were not included, and the rationale behind why.

The professor was cordial enough to meet with me after class to explain the metaphor further, and to say something very relative to the thread topic in the class - my question was too specific for the general nature of the subject material. It fit in perfectly with another class that same professor was teaching called "Research Methods in Criminology," in which class we analyzed the same metaphor from a researching standpoint to understand the controls placed upon it. The ice cream metaphor came up as well in the research methods textbook as an example of how correlation does not always mean causation - a good metaphor is ubiquitous in application.

I suppose the point of all of this is that textbooks (and, extrapolating further, classes) are all specialized - some specialize in generalities whereas others go much more in-depth. As with people, if you ask a textbook to do something it's not capable of doing you will find the results replete with inconsistencies, errors and inadequacies. A general chemistry textbook shouldn't be expected to, say, explain molecular bonding concepts in great detail - it needs to move on to the next section. If, however, by reading the textbook you discover an interest in molecular bonding, I am sure the university has a class on it - and, in that case, I would say the textbook did its job. While you may not have learned as much about molecular bonding as you would have liked, you did discover something new about yourself, which is equally valuable (though perhaps not on the exam).

~ Matt

[Stacy Head]

You know what they call a surgeon who barely scraped by in class and graduated last?

Doctor.

A surgeon who fails physics, no big deal. An engineer who fails physics is a problem. What you don't want is a surgeon who fails anatomy & physiology and has poor surgical skills.

Raze is confusing specialities.

Good call Fishstick!

[oggiesnr]

Text books (in all subjects) exist to support the course being offered. Courses at undergrad level tend to be fairly generalised and have a lot of ground to cover to provide the basis for future education or research if the student so desires it. It is not in the interests of the institution to use textbooks which do not accurately reflect the state of the subject at the time. Trying to derive the facts in a scientific textbook from first principles is beyond most of us at that stage in our learning and are you seriously suggesting that you would have time in the academic year to do so?

Steve

[technoextreme]

A surgeon who fails physics, no big deal.
I don't necessairly know if that is a appropriate statement. There is a lot of physics in medicine.

[Evilgiraffe]

There is a lot of physics in medicine.

True, but that doesn't mean that the medical practitioner needs to understand the physics involved, merely how to correctly interpret the results.

[drkitten]

True, but that doesn't mean that the medical practitioner needs to understand the physics involved, merely how to correctly interpret the results.

... no more than a car mechanic needs to understand physics. There's a tremendous amount of research that goes into the component you buy off the shelf at NAPA. There's a tremendous amount of research that goes into the drug your physician writes on a prescription pad.

In either case, as long as the stuff works as advertised, neither the mechanic nor the physician needs to know the physics.

[Evilgiraffe]

Actually I was thinking more about MRI or X-rays.
Both techniques require considerable skill in producing a diagnosis from the information gathered, yet at no time does the doctor need to know about the QM theories that underpin resonance imaging or X-ray scattering.

Fair point about the prescription drugs though. No need to understand the research involved in the development as long as it "does what it says on the tin".

[paximperium]

Actually I was thinking more about MRI or X-rays.
Both techniques require considerable skill in producing a diagnosis from the information gathered, yet at no time does the doctor need to know about the QM theories that underpin resonance imaging or X-ray scattering.

Minor quibble. The vast majority of docs do not but the specialist such as Radiologists or Radiation Oncologists do know the basics. It is required curriculum but overall that's true.

[Holler Hoojer]

I understand the point of JetLeg's post, but frankly, if you have gotten to say, your third year and are unable or unwilling to check any evidence you question, you should ask for your tuition back. Have you no library card? Have you no Google? Most Universities provide free journal access for a whole variety of subjects.

[Kahalachan]

Hi.


Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that
1) In undergraduate science textbooks, the evidence is not given for each and every claim.
2) In undergraduate science textbooks, even when the evidence is given, one cannot look at the evidence, and draw his own conclusions. The evidence is not detailed enough.


So, I understand that it is pretty impossible to supply the evidence for each and every claim, but yet -

1) Is not this an unhealthy attitude to develop critical thinking?
2) How is one supposed to think of claims that the textbooks says they are true, without providing the evidence? Thinking backwards? Believing the claim, and trying to think what can the evidence be? Another way?

The back of textbooks generally have references. So I don't know why you say they don't. Are you saying you think people should look up all 200 references cited? I'm lost.

When you write papers you're supposed to cite sources. That develops critical thinking.

[Captain.Sassy]

I can't remember ever having lab in science, doing experiments, any of that.

If only some school, somewhere, would have lab.


In my [public] highschool in Ottawa, we did labs in all science classes (chem, bio, physics).