Before teaching children science, teach them what science IS.

[Lord Kenneth]

(This is on philosophy and not science because I am discussing the philosophy of science)

There is a big problem in today's world. People are taught scientific facts, maybe they do a little bit of experimenting, but there is little time spent on teaching what science is.

Take the number one argument Christians use against atheists: "You can't disprove our religion." It's rather sad to see how little people understand how knowledge works or how rational decision making is formed. Claims are supported by parsimony, probability, and evidence. Few, very few, people seem to understand that.

First of all, people need to be taught that nothing can be known for certain. That's not to say that evidence doesn't exist-- it simply means we may come across new data which may contradict or not entirely fit in with our conclusion. As we all here know, admitting you are wrong is a good thing, not a bad one.

Second is another one I personally hate, the infamous anecdote. To the irrational, the only skepticism they display towards certain stories people tell (could be about ghosts, aliens, poltergeists, depends on your brand of wacko) are ones that do not support their conclusion. Apparently, for some, believing that aliens came from far-away galaxies while eluding our detection to put imprints in various crops is a far greater stretch than believing humans did it, because of the complexity of some of those circles. Yeah. Sure...

Third, justification is more important than the conclusion. Even skeptics seem to forget this. Many people sometimes fume that someone won't believe what they say. Sometimes one needs to ask "why is that the case?". I, for example, think love is nothing but a silly and frivolous emotion based mostly on how good someone looks. Others disagree with me and perhaps get mad at me for disagreeing against their say-so. But what am I supposed to believe? My own observations versus their claims? I would gladly admit I was wrong if a proper scientific study showed I was wrong (this is possible unless you are a dualist). It's OKAY to be wrong for the right reasons. But it's an intellectual sin to be right for the wrong reasons (something that is a large problem today).

I think that people are sometimes so concerned about being right that they end up being wrong. This might be why people continue to believe in religions despite the fact that its irrationality looks them in the face. So MANY people are believers... the consequences for not believing could be very bad... They are too afraid to be wrong, and end up avoid being right.

Of course, another factor with religion seems to be the whole "group" mentality of it, and the fact that it gives someone a label, something to identify themselves with, might help progress it. That's not what this is about, however.

While we are teaching kids how science actually works, why not introduce them to a bit of philosophy and logical reasoning as well? Couldn't hurt, could it? Of course, this might encourage children to think for themselves and not swallow everything their parents tell them, and we can't have that...

Society has an odd view of the intellectual-- philosophy seems to be looked down upon (sometimes that can be understandable), logic seems to dull, and that they can be so smart that they lose common sense (actually, I think it's the fact that we often don't adopt their preconcieved notions).


So, to paraphrase: people grow up associating science with simply general facts about the world, and not the only reliable method of determining the truth of something.

[Nyarlathotep]

You know, I have often thought the same thing. I think the basics of formal logic (things like if something occurs after another event, it does not always follow that the first event caused the second) is something that could be easily picked up by kids as young as the later years of elementary school. It is something they badly need to learn young rather than waiting until college to learn because by then, a lot of their ways of thinking are pretty well set. If young children learned logic at a young age, I think it would better enable them to distinguish fact from BS.

[RSLancastr]

Great post, LK.

Nyar, I think that it could start (in a simple form) as early as second or third grade, and build on it from there.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by RSLancastr
Great post, LK.

Nyar, I think that it could start (in a simple form) as early as second or third grade, and build on it from there.

Yeah, a second grader could probably pick it up. I figured the later years of Elementary school (by which I mean, maybe 5th or 6th grade) because I think that at a younger age, they still have their hands full learning the basics of how the world works and adding more to it could be confusing. But now that I think about it, it probably could all be worked in together.

[Blue Monk]

Excellent post LK and I couldn't agree with you more.

[LFTKBS]

I, for example, think love is nothing but a silly and frivolous emotion based mostly on how good someone looks. Others disagree with me and perhaps get mad at me for disagreeing against their say-so.
I wouldn't say that I'm mad at you, but I certainly disagree.

Silly? Frivolous? Pair bonds are pretty important for a rather large number of animals, including and especially homo sapiens.

On how good someone looks? Uh, that's lust, which is entirely different. You can have one or both or none, depending on the person. E.g.: I love my dog. I love and lust after my S.O. I lust after the girl from the jeans commercial. Etc.

I'm not claiming, LK, that love is magical or spiritual or fundamentally different from any other emotion, merely that it is neither silly nor frivolous, and that it is not based mostly on how someone looks.

You made the claim that it was all of those things. I think that's pretty extraordinary. And what do we all say about extraordinary claims?

[Tormac]

I love the spirit of your post LK.

So what are you planning on doing after high school? Ever thought of becoming a science teacher?

[Samus]

okay. What is science?

I'm not being facetious, actually, it's quite a legitimate question. Thinking back to my History and Philosophy of Science class in college, that's one of the first things we discussed. What is science? How do you define it? What makes something science?

Obviously, before teaching someone what science is, we need to be able to articulate, well, what science is!

Thoughts?

[ShottleBop]

I, for example, think love is nothing but a silly and frivolous emotion based mostly on how good someone looks. Others disagree with me and perhaps get mad at me for disagreeing against their say-so. But what am I supposed to believe? My own observations versus their claims? I would gladly admit I was wrong if a proper scientific study showed I was wrong (this is possible unless you are a dualist). It's OKAY to be wrong for the right reasons. But it's an intellectual sin to be right for the wrong reasons (something that is a large problem today).

Humans are, in fact, pair-bonding animals. Pick up Jared Diamond's The Third Chimpanzee and give it a read.

[Quinn]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Yeah, a second grader could probably pick it up. I figured the later years of Elementary school (by which I mean, maybe 5th or 6th grade) because I think that at a younger age, they still have their hands full learning the basics of how the world works and adding more to it could be confusing. But now that I think about it, it probably could all be worked in together.
I think it could start even earlier than that. At what age do kids generally start asking "Why?" to everything you tell them? Somewhere around three or four? That seems like a perfect place to begin. They've just grasped the basic concept of causality, and they're dying to know what makes things happen. If you can muster the patience to give them real answers to the seemingly endless strings of why's, rather than resorting to "Just because," you can go a long way toward instilling an aptitude and appreciation for logic that will soon become second nature.

Great topic, LK.

Quinn

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by dwb
okay. What is science?

I'm not being facetious, actually, it's quite a legitimate question. Thinking back to my History and Philosophy of Science class in college, that's one of the first things we discussed. What is science? How do you define it? What makes something science?

Obviously, before teaching someone what science is, we need to be able to articulate, well, what science is!

Thoughts?

As I said before, it hink the place to start is with basic logic. It is really the foundation on which science is based. Science is just a fromalized outgrowth of logic.

[fishbob]

I have posted several times that I think that Creationist Theory ought to be taught in science classes [DUCK] [/OUCH]
because the lack of evidence makes it obvious that Creationism is invalid. But, if science classes don't effectively identify what science is and how it works, then trying to show that Creationism is bogus would not work.

So maybe I was wrong, but for the right reasons?

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by fishbob
I have posted several times that I think that Creationist Theory ought to be taught in science classes [DUCK] [/OUCH]
because the lack of evidence makes it obvious that Creationism is invalid. But, if science classes don't effectively identify what science is and how it works, then trying to show that Creationism is bogus would not work.

So maybe I was wrong, but for the right reasons?

So you're advocating teaching it, but keeping it behind a glass case for better inspection. I like it. The question is whether that belongs in a science class or a logic class.

Of course, both sides of the arguement would have to be presented fairly [UNIMPALE] so that the gross shortcommings of creationist theories (being that there are several mutually exclusive schools of non-though there) could come to light.

Good idea. Good thread. More logical students, I like it.

[Rayn]

Fantastic topic LK.

I believe that there needs to be an acknowledgement that science accepts certain fundamental axioms in order to do what it does, namely that the universe is logical and consistent, and we can infer the rules from our observations.

Other areas that I would like to see emphasized would be Korzybski's General Semantics, linguistics that outline usage and how pronouns work, what meaning is, etc. I believe the fundamentals for this could also be started at a much younger age than it is taught (if it is ever taught) now.

Also, I wish there wasn't such a categorization of knowledge, as if all these different fields were completely unrelated. History is important in all fields, from philosophy and science to art and literature. Science is a methodology, which doesn't necessitate teaching in specified branches, especially not early on in our scholastic careers. Logic and math should be understood as symbolic systems, and on and on. The education system itself needs a drastic overhaul.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Rayn
Fantastic topic LK.

I believe that there needs to be an acknowledgement that science accepts certain fundamental axioms in order to do what it does, namely that the universe is logical and consistent, and we can infer the rules from our observations.


Where did those certain fundamental axioms come from? Could they have resulted from a certain religious position that fostered them? Wouldn't this play right into the hands of that particular religious disposition?


Other areas that I would like to see emphasized would be Korzybski's General Semantics, linguistics that outline usage and how pronouns work, what meaning is, etc. I believe the fundamentals for this could also be started at a much younger age than it is taught (if it is ever taught) now.

Also, I wish there wasn't such a categorization of knowledge, as if all these different fields were completely unrelated. History is important in all fields, from philosophy and science to art and literature.


Science works reductionistically; which results in forgetting the whole and focussing on the very small part. We should recognize this as a valid fault of how science proceeds, presently.

[jj]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
Science works reductionistically; which results in forgetting the whole and focussing on the very small part. We should recognize this as a valid fault of how science proceeds, presently.

Excuse me? Exactly how does the scientific process, which rests on the ability to falsify, the ability to confirm, repeat, predict, etc, do something like "focussing on the small part"?

That's exactly wrong. It focusses on what it must to determine the value of whatever is under test.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by jj


Excuse me? Exactly how does the scientific process, which rests on the ability to falsify, the ability to confirm, repeat, predict, etc, do something like "focussing on the small part"?

That's exactly wrong. It focusses on what it must to determine the value of whatever is under test.

It works reductionistically. It cannot handle too much complexity, so it works on very small parts of problems. Scientific fields have fragmented to smaller and smaller disciplines precisely because of this fact.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Suggestologist


It works reductionistically. It cannot handle too much complexity, so it works on very small parts of problems. Scientific fields have fragmented to smaller and smaller disciplines precisely because of this fact.


What are you even talking about? I don't understand.

How are you defining "complexity" and "very small parts of the problems"?

Science does not get into null speculation, if that's what you think it's flaw is. Science deals with evidence.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth



What are you even talking about? I don't understand.

How are you defining "complexity" and "very small parts of the problems"?

Science does not get into null speculation, if that's what you think it's flaw is. Science deals with evidence.

But it rarely pokes its head out into interdisciplinary investigation; it sticks to narrowly focused fields; and narrowly focused experimentation. The idea behind scientific reductionism was that if you understand the fine detail, you can then explain the more complex reality; but they have found it more difficult than they expected to put humpty dumpty back together again, after they have vivisected him.

[Lord Kenneth]

Care to provide any examples?

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Suggestologist

But it rarely pokes its head out into interdisciplinary investigation; it sticks to narrowly focused fields; and narrowly focused experimentation. The idea behind scientific reductionism was that if you understand the fine detail, you can then explain the more complex reality; but they have found it more difficult than they expected to put humpty dumpty back together again, after they have vivisected him.
I am amazed that you would refer to this as a fault. Well-controlled experiments with the minimal number of variables are a very powerful tool. If this method is faulty, do you have something better to offer that is not faulty, or less faulty?

Might i suggest that another word might work better, perhaps limitation?

It may be difficult to put the pieces back together again, but to make incorrect assumptions about what the pieces are and what they do is a recipe for trouble.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
Care to provide any examples?

You want "anecdotes"? Aren't those unscientific?

You've got people working on wavelets, others working on fractals, others working on quantum chromodynamics, others working on alcohol addiction in the brain, etc... How often do they even look at each other's fields; how often could they even hope to understand them without years of training within that particular field? How often could they take something from one field and apply it to another?

As more and more fields come into existence, it becomes less and less possible to have a thorough understanding of what all of it means as a whole.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

I am amazed that you would refer to this as a fault. Well-controlled experiments with the minimal number of variables are a very powerful tool. If this method is faulty, do you have something better to offer that is not faulty, or less faulty?

Might i suggest that another word might work better, perhaps limitation?

It may be difficult to put the pieces back together again, but to make incorrect assumptions about what the pieces are and what they do is a recipe for trouble.

To investigate at too low a level can also cause wild goose chases.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Suggestologist


You want "anecdotes"? Aren't those unscientific?

You've got people working on wavelets, others working on fractals, others working on quantum chromodynamics, others working on alcohol addiction in the brain, etc... How often do they even look at each other's fields; how often could they even hope to understand them without years of training within that particular field? How often could they take something from one field and apply it to another?

As more and more fields come into existence, it becomes less and less possible to have a thorough understanding of what all of it means as a whole.



I've come to the conclusion that you have no idea what you are talking about. For one thing, you apparently don't even know what an anecdote is... :rolleyes:

You do realize that it is possible for scientists to work together, right? The whole reason scientists tend to specialize in certain fields is because of that. We simply don't have long enough lives and time to have people study every single branch of science. That way scientists can work together to increase our understanding of the world.

This makes things easier to understand, not harder. It's the same reasons we have different sorts of doctors. You do better if you specialize in one field.

Physics is the branch of science that all other scientific fields are reducible to. Everyone knows that.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

I've come to the conclusion that you have no idea what you are talking about. For one thing, you apparently don't even know what an anecdote is... :rolleyes:

You do realize that it is possible for scientists to work together, right? The whole reason scientists tend to specialize in certain fields is because of that. We simply don't have long enough lives and time to have people study every single branch of science. That way scientists can work together to increase our understanding of the world.


What is possible? What about what is?


This makes things easier to understand, not harder.


For whom?


It's the same reasons we have different sorts of doctors. You do better if you specialize in one field.


You do better at less and less. You have people who cannot do a full surgery, instead, you have a series of doctors each doing their small bits. I'm not saying this has reached a critical point, but if we end up having to have a couple hundred doctors each examining their own small bits -- because the field has become so fragmented than no one doctor can do a "good" job at more than her one small procedure or examination, then we'll have a problem. And this is metaphorically what has happened to "Science" as a whole.


Physics is the branch of science that all other scientific fields are reducible to. Everyone knows that.

The form or reductionism you have just demonstrated with that statement is another problem. For most fields of science, reducing them to physics is nonsensical.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Suggestologist


What is possible? What about what is?

[/B]

For whom?

[/B]

You do better at less and less. You have people who cannot do a full surgery, instead, you have a series of doctors each doing their small bits. I'm not saying this has reached a critical point, but if we end up having to have a couple hundred doctors each examining their own small bits -- because the field has become so fragmented than no one doctor can do a "good" job at more than her one small procedure or examination, then we'll have a problem. And this is metaphorically what has happened to "Science" as a whole.



The form or reductionism you have just demonstrated with that statement is another problem. For most fields of science, reducing them to physics is nonsensical. [/B]


Your ignorance is the exact reason why people need to learn what science is in school! :rolleyes:

Sure, you're right, we are doing things all wrong. We should have doctors specialize in EVERYTHING instead of specific branches. Same with scientists. Because specializing in cell biology without completely understanding quantum mechanics really cripples us. :rolleyes:

Reducing things to physics in some fields of science is nonsensical? Ha, in what way? Everything can be reduced to physics.

You don't even know what you are blabbing about. You just want to seem "rebel" for not liking science, nevermind the fact that you have irrelevent and stupid complaints.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

Reducing things to physics in some fields of science is nonsensical? Ha, in what way? Everything can be reduced to physics.

I'm sorry, but that statement tells me that you have no idea what science is. But I might be wrong, please tell me what science is, according to you. And I don't mean logic, I mean, "What is science?" Simple question, what's your answer?

[Lord Kenneth]

Science is the materialistic system based upon obtaining and analyzing evidence in an effective manner to better unstand the world and produce technologies, along with sorting out truth from probable mistruths and determining probability.

It's you who don't understand what science is. Since the moment you've started posting in this thead I've had the impression of a very arrogant yet stupid individual who attempts to sound intelligent on what he does not know about.

Can you propose a better system than science? If you can't, I'm going to block you like the troll you are.

[fishbob]

Suggustologist sez:But it rarely pokes its head out into interdisciplinary investigation; it sticks to narrowly focused fields; and narrowly focused experimentation. The idea behind scientific reductionism was that if you understand the fine detail, you can then explain the more complex reality
--- and ---
You've got people working on wavelets, others working on fractals, others working on quantum chromodynamics, others working on alcohol addiction in the brain, etc... How often do they even look at each other's fields; how often could they even hope to understand them without years of training within that particular field? How often could they take something from one field and apply it to another?

It sure looks like Sug is talking about fields of scientific investigation and not at all about the scientific process or scientific method, which is what LK, jj, and AP are talking about. Two different subjects, both called "Science".

I suggest that you, Sug, take a closer look at LK's points and consider that maybe you are heading off on a tangent. On the other hand, the evidence we have so far does not rule out ordinary wackazoolian frothing.

[Rayn]

Suggestologist said: You've got people working on wavelets, others working on fractals, others working on quantum chromodynamics, others working on alcohol addiction in the brain, etc... How often do they even look at each other's fields; how often could they even hope to understand them without years of training within that particular field? How often could they take something from one field and apply it to another?

As more and more fields come into existence, it becomes less and less possible to have a thorough understanding of what all of it means as a whole.

Well, I think this is exactly the problem that needs to be addressed, especially at the elementary K-12 level of science. I believe that there needs to be a more holistic approach, one that teaches the method before the rote memorization. Sure there is massive differentiation, especially once you get to highly specialized fields such as theoretical physics and neurology, however, I wonder how much more fruitful findings could be if there was more of a interchange of results from different scientific fields.

That said, I was thinking that this thread is more about how to make education better, and the manner in which to accomplish that, whether it be through emphasis on logic and linguistics, or what-not. I think there needs to be an emphasis on the interrelatedness of different fields, especially at the beginning, allowing students to understand how to learn and teach themselves in whatever they find interesting.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Suggestologist

How often do they even look at each other's fields; how often could they even hope to understand them without years of training within that particular field? How often could they take something from one field and apply it to another?


In archaeology, it happens all the time. Archaeologists, in the course of their work, draw on the disciplines of geology and geophysics, chemistry, botany, linguistics, social anthropology, biology, geography, and forensic medicine regularly during the course of their work. Many archaeological methods of dating artifacts came with cooperation from other disciplines. C-14, Potassium-argon, and uranium decay dating methods came with help from chemists. Dendrochronology evolved with cooperation from botanists. Archaeo-magnetic dating and fission track dating came with help from physicists.

Pick up a book by Bob Brier and read about how MRIs, food matter in the stomachs, and forensic autopsies of Egyptian mummies are able to lend incredible insight into the lifestyles and climate of this or that particular time in Egypt. Or read a South American archaeological expedition's field reports to learn how satellite technology (with the cooperation of space scientists) and ground-penetrating radar (with the cooperation of geologists, who in turn developed it with cooperation of physicists and electronics specialists) are used to discern the outline of a Mayan city whose layout could never have been seen at ground level in the jungle.

An excellent example of archaeologists cooperating with other disciplines is the story of Robert Ballard and the Titanic. Nevermind all the oceanographers and engineering experts who pitched in to build all the equipment - Ballard and his team of experts spanning the spectrum of science were not only able to locate the wreck, but determine the chronology of its collision and sinking in the face of a multitude of seriously conflicting eyewitness reports.

[Brian the Snail]

Originally posted by Suggestologist


It works reductionistically. It cannot handle too much complexity, so it works on very small parts of problems. Scientific fields have fragmented to smaller and smaller disciplines precisely because of this fact.

Although I agree that scientific fields have become more and more specialised, and that more inter-disiplinary research is desirable, I don't think that this can be blamed on reductionism. Instead, I think this is an inevitable consequence of the exponential growth in scientific knowledge seen in the last few centuries. At the time of Galileo and Newton, when modern science was in it's infancy, it was possible for a single person be an expert in nearly all of the science. While now, with a much greater body of knowledge, it's possible for a single person to be an expert in only a very small part of science.

So, if over-specialisation is seen as a bad thing, and I can certainly see how sometimes this can be problem, then I think it's a case of science being a victim of it's own success rather than an inherent fault in it's methodology. And in fact, I feel that reductionism can be a useful tool acting in the other direction, since it serves to builds bridges between areas of science that before were unrelated.

Reductionism seems to get a bad press in some quarters for some reason. It's an important (and very useful) tool in science, but it's not the be-all-and-end-all of science. And the fact that many things are extremely complex doesn't stop us from studying them scientifically. Look at biology for example.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by LFTKBS


I'm not claiming, LK, that love is magical or spiritual or fundamentally different from any other emotion,



I think it is.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I think it is.


But you're a wacko.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth



But you're a wacko.

And you're a materialist loony.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth



But you're a wacko.

Can you see where this discussion would logically lead?

How about instead you forget about Ian and give your opinion on the "reductionism" of science, and whether this is constructive or destructive?

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


Can you see where this discussion would logically lead?

How about instead you forget about Ian and give your opinion on the "reductionism" of science, and whether this is constructive or destructive?

Ha, it doesn't matter where the discussion goes, with Ian any topic marked with his avatar of death is likely to turn into a materialists vs. him debate.

I just like to slip one comment in and then ignore him.

Oh, and I've already commented to Suggestologist about his crap.

[Lord Kenneth]

I'm still waiting for Suggestologist to propose a better system.

[ImpyTimpy]

Maybe it's just me, but Suggestologist has created the perfect strawman and you guys attacked it.

Yes, science has many fields along with many specialisations. That is because the more you learn about a certain topic, the more there is to find out. Nobody can understand every single aspect of our known Universe, so science is broken up into specific parts which deal with specific things. As far as I know, we don't start with a piston and figure out how to make an entire car. We start with a car and figure out what makes it go and then repeat it. :p

Attempting to say (or imply), hey, science sucks because it keeps breaking things down is idiotic. It's nothing more then a red herring, or a strawman depending on how you look at it. Attempting to attack that position is pointless, all one needs to do is point out this is nothing but a strawman. Yes, science breaks things down in order to specialise in them, because no human can understand all the vast intricacies of what we know about the world today.

[Rayn]

ImpyTimpy said: Attempting to say (or imply), hey, science sucks because it keeps breaking things down is idiotic. It's nothing more then a red herring, or a strawman depending on how you look at it. Attempting to attack that position is pointless, all one needs to do is point out this is nothing but a strawman. Yes, science breaks things down in order to specialise in them, because no human can understand all the vast intricacies of what we know about the world today.

I don't think that's the issue here, though. I thought we were discussing how we should teach science, especially at younger ages (K-12). I'd think that they should begin with a more holistic conception of science as methodology, as opposed to starting kids out with all these different categories. I thought that was the topic at hand, if it's not, I really don't have anything to add.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
Science is the materialistic system based upon obtaining and analyzing evidence in an effective manner to better unstand the world and produce technologies, along with sorting out truth from probable mistruths and determining probability.

So you're equating scientific materialism with Science? Or do you realize that materialism is not relevant to the scientific method(s)?

[jan]

Originally posted by Suggestologist

You've got people working on wavelets, others working on fractals, others working on quantum chromodynamics, others working on alcohol addiction in the brain, etc... How often do they even look at each other's fields; how often could they even hope to understand them without years of training within that particular field? How often could they take something from one field and apply it to another?


Some of this was already addressed by Joshua, but I was tempted to add some "fallacy of authority" (that means, an external quote).
The following quote is by Klaus Jänich, the crude translation my own:

Sometimes it is said that a distinguishing feature of modern science is its great and increasing specialisation; the phrase "only a handful of experts..." everybody will have heard. Well, such a general statement about such a complex phenomenom as "the modern science" always has the chance of containing some truth, but in the case of the stereotype of specialisation that grain of truth is rather small. More appropriate it is to call the large and increasing intertwining of once seperate disciplines a feature of modern science. What today, say, a number theorist and a differential geometer have to know in common, is more, even relatively more, than fifty or hundred years ago.

---

About the topic of teaching children how science works:

I think a major flaw of the recent method of teaching children science is to hide away all the problems the real scientists had developing their theories. Instead we are told a story of supreme heroes always getting it right the first time. A typical story would go like this: first Demokrit developed a theory that everything is made out of atoms, later Dalton collected some evidence, later it was discovered that burning and rusting are the same process, that is, oxidation, and so on. No word about the rivaling theory of phlogiston, it could irritate the children and is no longer important anyway.

It is very unlikely that your first guess is always the right guess. But that is what the history of science, abridged for educational purposes, most of the time tells you. I think it would be better to at least occasionaly consider "given that-and-that problem, what would be a sensible conjecture? And how was this first (and perfectly sensible, but false) conjecture refutated?" There is, I would say, nothing inherently wrong with the theory that lightnings are caused by an angry god, except that this theory is a bit outdated and there are better theories available now. But as far as I can see, the only occasion where an outdated theory is discussed in detail is Newtons mechanics - normally, you would expect a teacher to start with Einstein, dismiss Newton completly and begin teaching relativety theory in the usual authoritarian style. With "authoritarian style" I don't mean the kids are forced to learn a theory by heart, without understanding: perhaps the teacher is even using a system of questions and answers to let the kids "figure it out themself". But the aim of that game usually is quite clear: arrive at the modern theory without any detour. Unfortunatly, the scientific method is this detour.

I don't know how important it is to start teaching logic as early as possible. I don't think a perfect knowledge of formal logic is something you need to start with science. Instead I would say: start exploring questions, do some sience, or at least study what real world scientists in the past have done, and at some point, you will feel the need to explore all those questions about logic a bit further. I think it is quite pointless to teach the kids logic if they don't have any clue what this is all about. They should have some investigation experience to appreciate such a tool as formal logic.

[arcticpenguin]

Just think of the potential savings: if a young child can prove he/she doesn't exist, then it would be futile to waste money educating them

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by jan
About the topic of teaching children how science works:

I think a major flaw of the recent method of teaching children science is to hide away all the problems the real scientists had developing their theories. Instead we are told a story of supreme heroes always getting it right the first time. A typical story would go like this: first Demokrit developed a theory that everything is made out of atoms, later Dalton collected some evidence, later it was discovered that burning and rusting are the same process, that is, oxidation, and so on. No word about the rivaling theory of phlogiston, it could irritate the children and is no longer important anyway.


And how much does the omission of the observer in scientific papers contribute to this? How many times have you seen the word "I" in a scientific paper relating how the experiment was conducted? Striving for objectivity has led scientists to think that they have found it.


It is very unlikely that your first guess is always the right guess. But that is what the history of science, abridged for educational purposes, most of the time tells you.


How is it any less unlikely that your first theory that gains support by non-disfirming experimentation is more correct than another that fits the same facts just as well? Yet the first theory gains a priviledged status by the scientific cult er.. community, merely because it was thought of first, and the second (and third, and fourth, ...) theory have to carry a higher burden of proof.

This has more to do with psychological aspects (see: Polya's patterns of plausibility), than with "science".


I think it would be better to at least occasionaly consider "given that-and-that problem, what would be a sensible conjecture? And how was this first (and perfectly sensible, but false) conjecture refutated?" There is, I would say, nothing inherently wrong with the theory that lightnings are caused by an angry god, except that this theory is a bit outdated and there are better theories available now. But as far as I can see, the only occasion where an outdated theory is discussed in detail is Newtons mechanics - normally, you would expect a teacher to start with Einstein, dismiss Newton completly and begin teaching relativety theory in the usual authoritarian style. With "authoritarian style" I don't mean the kids are forced to learn a theory by heart, without understanding: perhaps the teacher is even using a system of questions and answers to let the kids "figure it out themself". But the aim of that game usually is quite clear: arrive at the modern theory without any detour. Unfortunatly, the scientific method is this detour.


I agree. The social dimensions of "science" are often ignored by educators; unless there's a juicy story behind something, or it's Galileo vs. the Inquisition -- and the teacher believes in not boring the students to death.


I don't know how important it is to start teaching logic as early as possible. I don't think a perfect knowledge of formal logic is something you need to start with science. Instead I would say: start exploring questions, do some sience, or at least study what real world scientists in the past have done, and at some point, you will feel the need to explore all those questions about logic a bit further. I think it is quite pointless to teach the kids logic if they don't have any clue what this is all about. They should have some investigation experience to appreciate such a tool as formal logic.

Really? You mean they should actually have some personal experience of science, before they can truly accept it as valid? How weird many of the scientific thinkers on this forum must find such a concept as the primacy of personal experience.

[ImpyTimpy]

Bingo. That's why I'm pointing out Suggestologist is creating a red herring (diversion from point at hand) or strawman (create a fictious argument for the other side and then attack it) depending on how you look at it it. I simply decided to address it anyway.

Originally posted by Rayn


I don't think that's the issue here, though. I thought we were discussing how we should teach science, especially at younger ages (K-12). I'd think that they should begin with a more holistic conception of science as methodology, as opposed to starting kids out with all these different categories. I thought that was the topic at hand, if it's not, I really don't have anything to add.

[fishbob]

How is it any less unlikely that your first theory that gains support by non-disfirming experimentation is more correct than another that fits the same facts just as well? Yet the first theory gains a priviledged status by the scientific cult er.. community, merely because it was thought of first, and the second (and third, and fourth, ...) theory have to carry a higher burden of proof. Yep, wackazoolian frothing.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
[Science] cannot handle too much complexity . . .What can?

[jan]

Originally posted by Suggestologist


And how much does the omission of the observer in scientific papers contribute to this? How many times have you seen the word "I" in a scientific paper relating how the experiment was conducted? Striving for objectivity has led scientists to think that they have found it.




Actually, I think you quite often find some sentences like "Prof N and Dr M think that theory T1 holds. But recently our team was able to show that they are wrong, and we suggest T2 instead." Anyway, I don't think this is very important. The arguments count, so you can ommit the word "I".

Originally posted by Suggestologist


How is it any less unlikely that your first theory that gains support by non-disfirming experimentation is more correct than another that fits the same facts just as well? Yet the first theory gains a priviledged status by the scientific cult er.. community, merely because it was thought of first, and the second (and third, and fourth, ...) theory have to carry a higher burden of proof.

This has more to do with psychological aspects (see: Polya's patterns of plausibility), than with "science".




I can't see that privileged status of older theories or a scientific cult. I suggest you read some scientific papers. Many articles contains sentences like "It used to be assumed that things are so-and-so... but now we have been able to show that they are, surprisingly, quite different, that is, so-and-so instead."

It is a myth (made popular by Thomas Kuhn and of course favoured by all those UFOlogists, faster-than-light-scientists, perpetuum-mobile-inventors and so on) that science is inherently a conservative business and only on very, very rare occasions changes its world view. Of course as drastic and fundamental changes as, say, the transgression from geocentric to heliocentric is something that is rare; but any kind of science consists of refutating old theories, any science is revolutionary. Even if you are "only" trying to determinate the structure of a certain protein you inevitable refutate some older theories. Nearly every time a new skull is digged out an old theory has to go.

Originally posted by Suggestologist

I agree. The social dimensions of "science" are often ignored by educators; unless there's a juicy story behind something, or it's Galileo vs. the Inquisition -- and the teacher believes in not boring the students to death.



But perhaps you don't agree to what I actually said. I was not advising you should teach the social history of science (that is, another heroic tale how a revolutionary scientist had to fight the ignorance of his surroundings). I recommended to say something about the intellectual history of science. It is an interesting social fact how the church treated Galileo, but it is quite irrelevant for the scientific method.

Originally posted by Suggestologist

Really? You mean they should actually have some personal experience of science, before they can truly accept it as valid? How weird many of the scientific thinkers on this forum must find such a concept as the primacy of personal experience.

I think science and logic are just refinements of sensible reasoning (sometimes very sophisticated refinements, of course). Sensible reasoning comes first, but you can enhance it with methodologic rules that showed to be valuable. Methodology is no a priory truth. I don't think this is widly considered weird.

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Just think of the potential savings: if a young child can prove he/she doesn't exist, then it would be futile to waste money educating them



Some curious children are interested in discussing logical, methaphysical or philosophical topics. I would never discourage discussing such topics. All I was trying to say is that it would be pointless to force a child to learn to recognize any possible kind of fallacy before it ever meets any kind of fallacy in real life. I would be quite proud if one of my childs could put forward a prove that it doesn't exist.