Mercurial > dylan
view org/science.org @ 3:44d3dc936f6a
moved backup files
author | Robert McIntyre <rlm@mit.edu> |
---|---|
date | Fri, 28 Oct 2011 00:06:37 -0700 |
parents | b4de894a1e2e |
children | 3ff40c869d1a |
line wrap: on
line source
1 #+title: Science Minus Science2 #+author: Dylan Holmes3 #+email: ocsenave@gmail.com4 #+description: What's wrong with our current Science Education?5 #+SETUPFILE: ../../aurellem/org/setup.org6 #+INCLUDE: ../../aurellem/org/level-0.org9 From what I've seen, today's science classrooms are remarkably10 unscientific. Someone has decided that it is less important to teach11 the empirical mindset than to impart our accumulated scientific12 knowledge. Thus, because the field is so vast nowadays, teachers are13 obliged to be frugal with the facts: they must prune tangential14 subjects and pare whatever's left, watering down complicated results15 into simplified half-truths. Needs must when the devil drives, of16 course--but what is the end result?18 In modern science classrooms, we force-feed students a deluge of19 unfamiliar scientific dogma which they must swallow in time to20 regurgitate onto an exam. To accomplish this daunting task, they21 cannot possibly stop to consider various alternatives which scientists22 have methodically eliminated over the course of centuries; instead,23 they must simply trust that science has done what it purports to have24 done--or, faster, simply stamp out their conjectural, critical25 instincts.27 By the end of such a course, students might be able to recite the28 tenets of our current scientific creed and might employ those tenets29 when answering carefully formulated questions. But even if, by chance,30 our students get their facts straight, they will have acquired at most31 only our pre-processed truths, and nothing of the empirical machinery32 that produced them. In my opinion, such a lackluster result demands33 that we re-evaluate our priorities. Surely the shibboleth of the34 scientist is not his ability to recount the bleeding-edge depiction of35 reality--after all, theories are transient and revolutions expected--but36 rather his pervasive inquiries about the world and his methodical,37 empirical approach to answering them? Indeed, don't we recognize the38 scientist by his lack of allegiance to the status quo, by the way he39 scrutinizes even his own theories with utmost irreverence?41 In valuing data absorption over methodical reason, we give our42 students a fragmentary and moreover inexplicable impression of43 reality. We must ask ourselves: how much of science is left in that?