Teaching

[Birch]

I nabbed this one from another thread because I wanted to start a new one and I have a bone to pick.

 

Mr A Seeker posted in the "Qi is not energy thread":

 

"Physicists (and engineers, chemists, biologists, moms, dads, kids, doctors, lawyers & Indian chiefs) use known-to-be-flawed models all the time! Two quick cases-in-point: gravity & light. We know that gravity really isn't an attraction between two objects in space -- Einstein clearly demonstrated that it is a warping of the space-time continuum -- but we continue to use Newton's equations with huge success on a daily basis and we teach our children this model."

 

But we don't teach them it's just a model and maybe/probably flawed...

 

 

 

"likewise, we know that the duality of light -- that it sometimes behaves as a wave and sometimes as a particle -- clearly invalidates BOTH models but we choose to continue to employ both of them, choosing whichever is most convenient for the given problem."

 

But we don't explain to people that's what we're doing...

 

"Unfortunately, the general public has a very limited & simplistic perception of what a physicist thinks of as "energy" and, for most people, "energy" means "electricity"."

 

Well, natch, if they only got taught the first set of ideas.

 

"For the physicist, however, there is vitually nothing (in fact, I cannot think of ANYTHING) in the universe that cannot be properly viewed as "energy" -- with the possible exception of the fabric of the space-time continuum itself, and there has been debate for nearly a century as to whether it even makes sense to talk about the space-time continuum as an independent entity for any purpose other than for facilitating our ability to wrap our heads around the concepts."

 

OK, my bone is "Why NOT teach" kids the stuff that physicist "knows" already?

 

What does this have to do with Taoism? Not sure but I was compelled to post it for no particular reason so figure it must be Wu-Wei

[Mokona]

Quoted for Truth

 

I spoke to one of my old Highschool teachers about that once, he told me that the set curriclula can't "just" be changed that easily and he had to fight to updated school material and bring better lessons into the classroom.

 

IMO - someone or a few someones are not doing the job they are supposed to do at the top of the education food chain, or they don't care.

[Birch]

"education food chain",

 

 

"or they don't care."

 

 

I suspect the former, then motivated by the latter. But would this mean that if I sat a physics exam and answered the questions using Einstein's theories I would fail?

 

I can't believe for a minute that a university-educated prof would go willingly into teaching to teach "the wrong stuff" and then blame it on his or her superiors or the "system"...oh wait...

[Brian]

...

[Sloppy Zhang]

It is incredibly tedious to put a disclaimer in front of everything you say/teach saying "this might not be correct and is subject to change as soon as new information is discovered.... furthermore, this is a model, and is not an accurate representation of how things ACTUALLY work, rather, we just use these formulas to make accurate calculations."

 

When the heliocentric model of the solar system first came out (sun at the center), it was LESS accurate than the geocentric model (earth at the center). It took a while before we created a model that BOTH 1) made accurate predictions about where planets would be at certain times that 2) corresponded with what was actually there.

 

Same goes with many an argument I've gotten into with people. They get so hung up on the words I'm saying, and they respond, "how can you think that? How can you even believe that is possible? Do you know the implications of what you are saying?" and I respond, "no, I DON'T necessarily believe that. Instead, I am putting it forward as ONE possible explanation for something, and it works in X, Y, and Z cases, but does not work in A, B, and C cases. Obviously each situation is unique and everyone can potentially be an exception."

 

The thing is, especially in academia, a LOT of stuff goes without saying. Like.... a LOT. The problem is (even in academia) as time goes on, we forget to look down at the little asterisks because we know what's written there. Then we forget to include the asterisks, but that's okay, because we know what it means. And then we forget the meaning.

 

At a high level of math/science, people DO recognize that much of what we "know" isn't really what's actually happening. It's a model that works in explaining what's there, and provides us a means to understand and work with the world around us in a productive manner. Sometimes our model corresponds to what is actually happening. Sometimes it does not.

 

Now, at an educational level, in high school/middle school/elementary school, most people 1) don't care 2) use a certain teaching method. For example, in first grade you are taught, "you can't subtract a big number from a small number. 2 - 6 is impossible. If you only have two apples, you can't take 6 away." Sometimes a kid who knows a lot says, "well you can have -4." Some teacher might say, "that's a bit too far ahead." Another teacher might say, "NO, that's impossible!"

 

And then later on, you teach a new set of rules. [sarcasm]Because kids just can't handle a system that doesn't have a solid foundation, you have to teach it to them in little tiny pieces that won't be too hard for their tiny little minds to understand.[/sarcasm]

 

So, you set up some rules. Then you break them. Make new ones. Then you break those. Eventually you get a set of rules that can last a really, really, REALLY long time. But in the back of your mind, you (are supposed to) know that eventually they'll be broken too.

[Brian]

...

[goonis38]

I nabbed this one from another thread because I wanted to start a new one and I have a bone to pick.

 

Mr A Seeker posted in the "Qi is not energy thread":

 

"Physicists (and engineers, chemists, biologists, moms, dads, kids, doctors, lawyers & Indian chiefs) use known-to-be-flawed models all the time! Two quick cases-in-point: gravity & light. We know that gravity really isn't an attraction between two objects in space -- Einstein clearly demonstrated that it is a warping of the space-time continuum -- but we continue to use Newton's equations with huge success on a daily basis and we teach our children this model."

 

But we don't teach them it's just a model and maybe/probably flawed...

 

 

 

"likewise, we know that the duality of light -- that it sometimes behaves as a wave and sometimes as a particle -- clearly invalidates BOTH models but we choose to continue to employ both of them, choosing whichever is most convenient for the given problem."

 

But we don't explain to people that's what we're doing...

 

"Unfortunately, the general public has a very limited & simplistic perception of what a physicist thinks of as "energy" and, for most people, "energy" means "electricity"."

 

Well, natch, if they only got taught the first set of ideas.

 

"For the physicist, however, there is vitually nothing (in fact, I cannot think of ANYTHING) in the universe that cannot be properly viewed as "energy" -- with the possible exception of the fabric of the space-time continuum itself, and there has been debate for nearly a century as to whether it even makes sense to talk about the space-time continuum as an independent entity for any purpose other than for facilitating our ability to wrap our heads around the concepts."

 

OK, my bone is "Why NOT teach" kids the stuff that physicist "knows" already?

 

What does this have to do with Taoism? Not sure but I was compelled to post it for no particular reason so figure it must be Wu-Wei

 

Hi Kate,

I think this is such a good point about how you say energy is everything, just about. people for the most part don't think that way. I agree. It's like I was saying" I feel positive energy coming from this forum" just a minute ago. You make a cool point...

 

Even thought is energy. And you where talking about the fabric of space-time continuum and the debate over that. I would say everything is of energy, I'm not sure if it is of a different kind of energy though, what do you think on that?. The kind I am thinking about... Like spiritual energy, or thought energy... But I'm sure there are different types...

 

This is so right about a lot of things. I was told that everything runs on different vibrational energy, and this is how it is all connected...

This is an awesome thread... Mel

[Birch]

Interesting arguments. I'm not sure I'm convinced so far.

 

"It is incredibly tedious to put a disclaimer in front of everything you say/teach saying "this might not be correct and is subject to change as soon as new information is discovered.... furthermore, this is a model, and is not an accurate representation of how things ACTUALLY work, rather, we just use these formulas to make accurate calculations."

 

And so it is, but doesn't it a)keep one honest and b)open up opportunities for those people who can go beyond the current understanding to go there?

 

Why hold the kid in the apples example back?

 

And I'm not convinced that "invalidated knowledge" can really constitute "knowledge" anymore - wouldn't that just be, well, a "mistake"? You know, the old saw of "Well, we used to think the earth was flat, but it was just an idea."

 

 

Mr Seeker, I wasn't referring directly to your parenting of any children you might have (I had no idea you did) and I'm sure you're doing your best by them. It must be awesome to have a father who is both a scientific man as well as a spiritual practitioner. Hard to reconcile at times? I guess there was a time (way back ) when spirituality and science, and religion were one...

 

Mel, it was Mr Seeker who posted the original quote which I took from another thread.

 

My bone is to do with education. I'm not sure the comparison with "spiritual practice" or physical education (like yoga) is the best one, although it might be.

 

It's one of those questions I think I might know the answer to but I hope not.

[Sloppy Zhang]

And so it is, but doesn't it a)keep one honest and b)open up opportunities for those people who can go beyond the current understanding to go there?

 

No it does not.

 

Why hold the kid in the apples example back?

 

Because most of the people in the position to do anything about it don't care. Teachers are underpaid and overworked. In the case of young students (elementary school), they have to play the dual role of teacher and babysitter. Even as kids get older, they have to deal with kids' lives- drugs, peer pressure, and things like that impact the classroom. They have to be teacher AND disciplinarian.

 

You COULD say that at a university level, many of those responsibilities are alleviated- students are legal adults, professors aren't under any obligation to be parents in the legal sense (that I'm aware of, anyway). And on top of that, they aren't in any role of "world building."

 

Louis Althusser spoke of what he called "ideological state apparatus." Schools are a prime example. Not only do they teach facts, but they also teach worldviews. If there are two apples, you can't take away six. Sure, you might be able to do that with abstract numbers.... but in "reality", if there aren't 6 apples, you can't take 6 away. So while they are teaching "math", they are also teaching the difference between "real" and "imaginary". They are teaching what is "possible" and "impossible."

 

As far as most teachers on the "front lines" are concerned, a student who already knows negative numbers is a "problem". It's a duck out of line. That kid might make another kid start asking questions. It might confuse other students who haven't been exposed to the material, or students who have a hard time grasping the material that's in front of them already. So shut them up. In the most constructive way, you "shut them up" by putting them in an advanced track, full of other kids who are further along with the rest of the kids.

 

Yeah, it sucks. I personally don't like it. Sure, in an ideal world things would be different. But we don't live in an ideal world. Someone who sits in front of a camera for a few hours is paid millions of dollars and gets passes from the law. Someone who is passing on the knowledge of society to the next generation is relegated to day care duty and gets paid with scraps.

 

So... yeah.

 

And I'm not convinced that "invalidated knowledge" can really constitute "knowledge" anymore - wouldn't that just be, well, a "mistake"? You know, the old saw of "Well, we used to think the earth was flat, but it was just an idea."

 

Well..... kind of sort of.

 

Let's say you lived in the old time days of astronomy. You wanted to predict where a planet was going to be in two weeks. The heliocentric model first came out. Its numbers aren't good. The geocentric model is tried and true. It accurately predicts where a planet is going to be. Your goal is to figure out where a planet is going to be. So what are you going to do? Use the heliocentric model because you think it is "right"? You're probably going to use the geocentric model. You know, given recent discoveries, that it's most likely not correct.... but you need the numbers!

 

I've taken a history of astronomy course, and many astronomers did this- they would switch between different models and use different ones for different situations.

 

Is one any more "right" than the other? Depends on what you want "right" to be. Correct numbers? Correct representation of the universe? In an ideal world, we'd want both. But we don't live in an ideal world.

 

 

And sadly, as much as it hurts me to say, a lot of people just don't care. Fixing it would take too much work. So they don't even try.

Edited October 15, 2010 by Sloppy Zhang

[Encephalon]

Did you guys ever read "Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling" by John Gatto? He won Teacher of the Year awards in NYC and basically said the entire system is corrupt. Why he thinks this is so is the intriguing part of the story.

[Birch]

Depends on what you want "right" to be.

 

Ah, so yes, this was the answer to the question I was hoping not to see. The new question is "What do we want "right" to be"? Not something other people are supposed to do while we're looking the other way, I hope?

 

The lack of hope expressed here is probably a decent illustration of the effects of such an education.

 

Something else? Something better than what's just been described?

 

How about teaching the kids "scientific method"? I don't see anything terrible about teaching people a variety of calculations for applicative purposes. But it stops there for me.

 

Thank you Blasto, I will go read that book.

[Sloppy Zhang]

Ah, so yes, this was the answer to the question I was hoping not to see. The new question is "What do we want "right" to be"? Not something other people are supposed to do while we're looking the other way, I hope?

 

Well that's really complicated, and very hard to articulate

 

You want people to look at something and be able to honestly evaluate whether something works or makes sense. And you want people to be open to criticisms and new ideas. So you adopt a method someone else has if it's better than yours. If some kid is really smart and catches on quick, you adapt your own teaching methods.

 

The problem is that, at some point, you've got to do SOMETHING. If people endlessly sit around and debate and keep "innovating" and no one ever makes it do the step where you actually DO something, then you've got nothing!

 

The good news is that, as the saying goes, "there's more than one way to skin a cat." So even if multiple ideas come out of this process, they can all do the same thing.

 

The problem is that people tend to fight over all these different ideas and methods. On top of that, each person is different, so even if there are lots of different things happening at any given point in time, there's no real guarantee that each person is in the right place at the right time, unless they are honestly evaluating themselves and are honestly evaluated.

 

So you've gotta have some system that is flexible enough to change, but steady enough to make progress. And the people within the system have to be honest with themselves and others about when a change actually needs to get made, and when it is pointless to bicker because you aren't doing something.

 

And that requires a LOT on the individual level.

 

The lack of hope expressed here is probably a decent illustration of the effects of such an education.

 

I wouldn't say "lack of hope", so much as "excessive experience" sure, it'd be nice if we could all get along and do this right. It'd be really convenient. I'd really like that. Am I holding my breath? No. Have I given up completely? No. But.... I'm still breathing.

[Birch]

"So you've gotta have some system that is flexible enough to change, but steady enough to make progress."

 

Ah, progress - What is it? I don't know. It's one of those questions I don't know the answer to.

 

"And the people within the system have to be honest with themselves and others about when a change actually needs to get made, and when it is pointless to bicker because you aren't doing something."

 

It is completely hopeless then.

 

IME, people don't bicker about doing things, they bicker about what other people should be doing (this conversation an example, of course;-) but I'm not "in the education system" because I'm not qualified, although I was allowed to teach foreigners when I was an undergrad,so go figure how "qualification" is determined

 

I think I mentioned this to someone else, that practices wouldn't exist unless they had to (or I'm paraphrasing myself badly and it went something like, "practices exist as an antidote"). And I sometimes feel there are presently too many things that require the antidote afforded by practices. But maybe there have always been "too many things".

[Encephalon]

There's nothing of value I can contribute to this conversation. (Quick!! Alert the media! Blasto concedes ignorance of certain matters! )

 

Honestly, Fritjof Capra is doing the best work here - http://www.ecoliteracy.org/

 

One of modern science's first western Taoists.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

The current model relies on 'quantification for gratification', if you can teach them 'this' then you get 'that'.. so it becomes a bunch of commodities.. basically, status quo, building replacement parts for the socio-economic machine.. rather than teaching students 'what' to think, teach them 'how' to think.. but, that is threatening to the machine's well-being..

 

Be well..

[devoid]

I think there are quite some misunderstandings and possibly misconceptions in the thread that I would like to help to try to clarify.

 

Newtonian physics is a great thing. There's nothing wrong with it when constricted to our daily environment, in which it is very accurate. It can be used to discuss pretty much anything of enough physical substance to hold and feel in your hand. Basically, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation tells us that two objects are attracted to each other and a consequence of it is that the greater the masses of the objects, and the shorter the distance between them, the stronger the gravitational pull will be. It also has the advantage that the formulas are simply enough to be used to teach 7-graders to use them.

 

OK - enough about Newtonian mechanics - back to the thread: So, the argument is that while Newtonian physics hold true for practical purposes in our physical touch+feel environment, this turns out not to hold universally true, after all. So let's look at what Einstein said: If two objects are moving towards or away from each other they cannot do this faster than the speed of light. Furthermore, if two objects are are travelling together on some vehicle at the speed of light, you cannot accelerate one of them go even faster.

 

While this is really interesting when looking at what light is made out of (i.e. photons) which mindbogglingly hold hold the properties of being particles of mass as well as waves of energy while in motion (and in isolation) - this tells us that that Newtonian physics don't hold at this very marginal level (i.e. particles of almost infinitely small mass and which travel at close to the speed of light). For such extremities we have quantum mechanics.

 

(The following is what I remember from a Uni course in quantum mechanics many years ago: you will have to forgive me for any inaccuracies). This can lead to a bunch of cool stuff, such as e.g. "quantum teleportation" which involves giving a photon a spin and then physically splitting the wave form of the photon - and after having taken the parts away from each other (and assuming you have managed to maintain their state undisturbed) then the following happens when you try to measure (and thereby stop) the one half: the other one also stops or disappears at the same instant and if measured at the exact same time it would have maintained the same spin. Please notice that these are properties of photons and similarly small particles which prefer to travel at close to the speed of light in a vacuum. In other words, it does not apply to humans, tangible objects, etc. (Somehow, this important additional fact is typically neglected conveniently in a lot science fiction stories ) To play around with the basic ideas of quantum mechanics (in a meaningful way) one needs to master mathematical tools which require maths / physics of at least university undergrad course level - things that you cannot easily teach your average 7th grader or even your average college student.

 

I therefore suggest telling your kids Newtonian physics work great for almost all practical purposes and that quantum mechanics (which require a very deep mathematical understanding) rule things once we get into looking at the little pieces that make up atoms, light, etc. At least, that's what I tell my kids

 

I'll be happy to suggest few titles on Quantum Mechanics if anybody's interested.

[Brian]

...

[Guest paul walter]

Did you guys ever read "Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling" by John Gatto? He won Teacher of the Year awards in NYC and basically said the entire system is corrupt. Why he thinks this is so is the intriguing part of the story.

 

 

Yes, he doesn't hold back, very rare for someone who was in his position to bite the hand that fed him. Still,he's a lone voice mostly and we're a long way from the de-schooling aspirations, innovative curricula and open forms needed to both open the mind and keep students "up to date" that some were trying to develop/implement in the 60's-70's (Illich, Holt, Goodman). As long as meritocracy and grading win the day there will always be huge problems with the practice of 'education'(ideology). I remember in an interview de-schooler Paul Goodman stressing how the middle class are "crazy for this sort of thing" and resist reforms in the direction of openness and education change at every turn cause it's all they understand-and they are the ones active on school boards etc etc. As long as the goal of economic/social success is lurking behind the teaching of young minds then things won't change. Paul

Edited October 18, 2010 by paul walter