1.1 --- a/org/science.org	Thu Oct 27 23:02:59 2011 -0500
     1.2 +++ b/org/science.org	Sat Oct 29 21:18:54 2011 -0500
     1.3 @@ -1,43 +1,72 @@
     1.4  #+title: Science Minus Science 
     1.5  #+author: Dylan Holmes
     1.6  #+email: ocsenave@gmail.com
     1.7 -#+description: What's wrong with our current Science Education?
     1.8 +#+description: The debate between teaching scientific facts and the scientific way to think.
     1.9  #+SETUPFILE: ../../aurellem/org/setup.org
    1.10  #+INCLUDE: ../../aurellem/org/level-0.org
    1.11  
    1.12 +I'm worried that science classes are becoming unscientific.
    1.13 +Typically, science classes are supposed to teach not only how the world works, but also how
    1.14 +to think scientifically. Lately, however, our mentality has been
    1.15 +marginalized to make time for teaching students all the theory that
    1.16 +eventual college students should know.
    1.17 +#I've noticed that classrooms
    1.18 +#have been heavily emphasizing our information, rather than our
    1.19 +#mentality. They haven't forgotten about teaching ways to think, but
    1.20 +#they insist that teachers familiarize their students
    1.21 +#with theories that every college student should know. 
    1.22 +Because our theories are complex,
    1.23 +with intricacies that would be cruel and unusual to
    1.24 +inflict upon unsuspecting pupils, such a curriculum requires teachers to be frugal with the facts: they must prune tangential
    1.25 +subjects and pare whatever's left, watering down complicated results
    1.26 +into simplified half-truths. They must avoid the imperfect boundaries
    1.27 +of our knowledge, instead concentrating on an idealized and sanitized
    1.28 +account of what we know. But what's the result of such abbreviation?
    1.29  
    1.30 -Today's science classrooms are remarkably
    1.31 -unscientific. According to prevailing wisdom, it is less important to teach
    1.32 -the empirical mindset than to impart our accumulated scientific
    1.33 -knowledge. Thus, because the field is so vast nowadays, teachers are
    1.34 -obliged to be frugal with the facts: they must prune tangential
    1.35 -subjects and pare whatever's left, watering down complicated results
    1.36 -into simplified half-truths. Needs must when the devil drives, of
    1.37 -course--but what is the end result?
    1.38 +#Needs must when the devil drives, of
    1.39 +#course--but what is the end result?
    1.40  
    1.41 -In modern science classrooms, students must swallow a 
    1.42 -deluge of unfamiliar scientific dogma in time to
    1.43 -regurgitate it onto an exam. To accomplish this daunting task, they
    1.44 -cannot possibly stop to consider various alternatives which scientists
    1.45 -have methodically eliminated over the course of centuries; instead,
    1.46 -they must simply trust that science has done what it purports to have
    1.47 -done--or, faster, simply stamp out their own conjectural, critical
    1.48 -instincts.
    1.49 +#As a result of this shift, they have been saddled with the
    1.50 +#difficult task of disseminating complex scientific theories in a short
    1.51 +#period of time 
    1.52  
    1.53 +# and it is less important to teach
    1.54 +#the empirical mindset than to impart our accumulated scientific
    1.55 +#knowledge. Thus, because the field is so vast nowadays, teachers are
    1.56 +#obliged to be frugal with the facts: they must prune tangential
    1.57 +#subjects and pare whatever's left, watering down complicated results
    1.58 +#into simplified half-truths. Needs must when the devil drives, of
    1.59 +#course--but what is the end result?
    1.60 +
    1.61 +In modern science classrooms, students must still swallow a deluge of
    1.62 +unfamiliar scientific dogma in time to regurgitate it onto an
    1.63 +exam. In their forced hurry, they cannot stop to ponder various
    1.64 +alternatives which scientists have methodically eliminated over the
    1.65 +course of centuries; instead, they must simply trust that science has
    1.66 +done what it purports to have done--or, faster, simply stamp out their
    1.67 +own conjectural, critical instincts.
    1.68 +
    1.69 +Facility with
    1.70 +scientific concepts and language is  
    1.71 +not such a bad skill to have.
    1.72  By the end of such a course, students might be able to recite the
    1.73  tenets of our current scientific creed and might employ those tenets
    1.74 -when answering carefully formulated questions. But even if, by chance,
    1.75 -our students get their facts straight, they will have acquired at most
    1.76 +when answering carefully formulated questions.  I am worried, though, because even if
    1.77 +our students get their facts straight, they will still have acquired at most
    1.78  only our pre-processed truths, and nothing of the empirical machinery
    1.79  that produced them. 
    1.80  
    1.81 -In my opinion, such a lackluster result demands
    1.82 -that we re-evaluate our priorities. Surely the essential mark of the
    1.83 +In my opinion, this shortchanges our students, and we ought to re-evaluate our priorities. Surely the essential mark of the
    1.84  scientist is not his ability to recount the latest model of reality,
    1.85  but rather his pervasive inquiry and methodical, empirical
    1.86  approach to obtaining answers? Instead of canonizing the latest
    1.87  theories, shouldn't we be stimulating a zeal for scrutinizing 
    1.88 -them?
    1.89 +them? Might we even want to /postpone/ handing our
    1.90 +students canned knowledge, at the very least until we've taught them enough
    1.91 +about how to be curious, how to acquire knowledge for themselves, how
    1.92 +to be analytical---in short, how to live like scientists? 
    1.93 +
    1.94 +
    1.95  
    1.96  #Surely the shibboleth of the
    1.97  #scientist is not his ability to recount the bleeding-edge depiction of
    1.98 @@ -46,8 +75,15 @@
    1.99  #empirical approach to answering them? Indeed, don't we recognize the
   1.100  #scientist by his lack of allegiance to the status quo, by the way he
   1.101  #scrutinizes even his own theories with utmost irreverence?
   1.102 - 
   1.103 -In valuing data absorption over methodical reason, we give our
   1.104 +
   1.105 +When we value data absorption over methodical reason, we give our
   1.106  students a fragmentary and moreover inexplicable impression of
   1.107 -reality. We must ask ourselves: how much of science is left in that?
   1.108 +nature, one which will probably evaporate outside the classroom. That's an approach to science which  hardly sounds like science.
   1.109 +Instead, let's teach students how to think, so they can build a
   1.110 +framework that will house the rest of their knowledge. Let's stop
   1.111 +rushing to teach students everything we know, and let them grapple
   1.112 +with Nature themselves for a while. Let's train them to be curious rather than
   1.113 +complacent learners. The results will be worth our effort.
   1.114  
   1.115 +#I ask you: how much of science is left in that?
   1.116 +