Travis,

That is a very interesting and informative essay. Though I don't know that it might have better been focused on the contest question of 2012, 'Questioning the Foundations: Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?'

Personally I'm not a professional scientist, but have much natural experience with the laws of basic physics. To that end, I keep pointing out in the FQXI forums that we are looking at time backwards. It isn't the point of the present moving from past to future, which physics distills to measures of duration, to use in its 'calculations,' but the process by which future becomes past. For example, the earth doesn't travel either Newton's absolute flow, or Einstein's fourth dimension, from yesterday to tomorrow, but rather tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates. Suffice to say, this runs up against that brick wall of academic inertia you are describing, because it seriously undermines some cardinal assumptions, such as spacetime and therefore all the projections arising from it. In fact, it makes time similar to temperature. Time is to temperature what frequency is to amplitude. The rate of change and the level of activity. We think of temperature as a cumulative effect, but it is based on lots of particular actions of specific velocity or amplitude. On the other hand, we think of time as a universal process, but we cannot deduce the absolute measure, only the cumulative effect of lots of particular changes. So we are looking at them from conceptually opposite directions. Like watching the sun move across the sky, the sequencing of events is a function of our singular point of view, when in fact we are just a human molecule, bouncing around the medium.

It was the topic of my entry in that 2012 contest. As for this contest, I also feel there are a lot of conceptual fallacies we have to clear up, before any hope of controlling our worldwide context, so Good Luck!

Regards,

John M

Dear Travis,

Indeed the education of our children is THE important thing for any future , and not only the scientific education, no it begins already when our children are watching television and see what a mess we made of the world.

The parents (if they are aware of what they are watching !!!) could then explain what is behind this mess and how it could have been prevented , so it is the totality of mentality that has to be changed from the short view to the wide view including ALL abilities of humanity, starting indeed with the total change of egoistic economy.

I appreciated your essay and maybe you may be able to read [link:fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1991] my essay "Steering the Future of Consciousness"[:link] and leave there a post on my thread, eventually when you have an overview of the entrances give me a rating.

best regards

Wilhelmus

    Dear Travis,

    While the title was deterring to me, the abstract seems to indicate a truly interesting essay. I personally avoided teaching controversies. A well known expert in physiology of hearing admitted using each year the same questions in exams. This was possible because the correct answers were different ones each year.

    I wonder if your readiness to deal with the most decisive question didn't result in your insight that even the seemingly settled one are strictly speaking perhaps rather open. See the references of 2021.

    Regards,

    Eckard

      Travis -

      Thanks for the great essay - all students, and especially science students, would benefit from a good experience of how science had historically evolved from "West" to "East". One of the concerns with only teaching from the East is that it tends to give a sense of perfection to science - science becomes "dogma" as you put it. More humility would be welcome in science. This is an issue I touch on in my essay, The Tip of the Spear.

      I wonder, however, about your theme that what is now West will eventually become East. As you put it, "We should expect all of this, that is, if we can resist the impulse to dismiss the controversy as "metaphysical" or otherwise meaningless and unscientific." However, some of the frontiers science we are confronting are probing at the issues of what we cannot know. Quantum physics is not the only area dealing with paradox. Mathematics and logic have similar struggles with self-reference. Complexity theory confounds our intuitions about the predictability of nature, and unsolvable problems are a critical limit in computational science. Maybe science students also need a dose of metaphysics?

      Many thanks - George

        I enjoyed your essay greatly Travis...

        I think you would enjoy mine as well, since I also talk about reforming Education - by focusing on the value of play. There is a lot to be said for teaching Science via the history of scientific controversies, and I would not have believed the linkage was so strong, before reading your essay. You did a masterful job of drawing me in to the story behind some of the developments we have all learned about.

        I absolutely agree that teaching any scientific subject as a collection of facts and formulas is a waste of time, because the real practice of a pursuit like Physics involves wrestling with the possible applicability of several competing models - and wanting to know what is behind the observable reality, despite the temptation to just shut up and calculate. I have always been more interested in understanding quantum mechanics' foundations, than how to find solutions to specific equations, for example, but I know there is a place for that too.

        I think we need to bring back the Wild West, to use the analogy in your intro, but even moreso; we need to inspire a generation of frontier explorers with ingenuity and innovativeness to spare. We need more adventurers, rather than people who learn a bunch of facts. The most important fact is that Science keeps advancing; it does not remain the same. So you are right to imagine we should teach the contentious and tumultuous birth of scientific knowledge, from a perspective informed by history.

        All the Best,

        Jonathan

        Travis, I agree with your idea of bringing real problems into the way we learn. A while back I got some funding to create an open-ended global (online) school that was sort of an encyclopedia of solutions, wiki-style, where the goal was to have a database of all the categories of things we humans care about, and allow people to share their own solutions for attaining better versions of these things, similar to Instructibles, but truly well organized and open to wiki-editing (and without the corporate/profiteering annoyances). The idea was to use this as a platform for educators and informal learners to research, share, test, and explore a world of ideas. Unfortunately, my funding ran out before anyone ever showed up to contribute (other than me), and I don't even have enough money to live, myself (so I can't fund it personally) so it's a defunct project at the moment. But it was such a glaringly obviously good idea that I imagine that someone else will make it, and make it popular!

          Consider creating crowd-sourcing as relativistic social networks based upon enterprise. By creating a business model where a large collection of social groups create a shared sub-group, the potential for diverse opportunities to leverage under-utilized resources becomes feasible.

          Example:

          Interns in Industry Program

          http://jamesbdunn2.blogspot.com/2013/02/national-program-interns-in-industry-iii.html

          Any good intention without a business model is without merit.

          By creating a diverse pool of businesses that share a system of common goals, they can both get a return on their investments AND promote diversity in education.

          James Dunn

          FQXi Submission:

          Graduated Certification for Certification of Common Sense

          http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2045

          Dear Mr. Norsen,

          Your excellently written essay was one of the most compelling essays of the ones I have read so far, and I do hope that it does well in the competition. May I humbly make a suggestion? Only perfect abstraction is taught in all of academia. Please do not take this as a personal attack upon you because you only teach abstraction perfection. This is how the real Universe is occurring, once.

          Based only on my observation, I have concluded that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real things have one and only one thing in common. Each real thing has a material surface and an attached material sub-surface. A material surface can be internal or external. All material surfaces must travel at the constant "speed" of light. All material sub-surfaces must travel at an inconsistent "speed" that is less than the "speed" of light. It would be physically impossible for light to move as it does not have a surface or a sub-surface. Abstract theory cannot ever have unification. Only reality is unified because there is only one reality.

          I use the term "speed" of light merely to make it easier for the reader to understand my theory. Actually light cannot move because it does not have a surface. Light is the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The proof of this is easy to establish. When one looks at an active electrical light, one must notice that all of the light remains inside of the bulb. What does move from the bulb is some form of radiant. The radiant must move at a rate of speed that is less than the "speed" of light, however, when the radiant strikes a surface it achieves the "speed" of light because all surfaces can only travel at the "speed" of light. When it strikes a surface, the radiant resumes being a light, albeit of a lesser magnitude. While it is true that searchlights, spotlights and car headlights seem to cast a beam of light, this might be because the beams strike naturally formed sub-atomic particles prevalent in the atmosphere that actually form a surface.

          In the Thomas Young Double Slit Experiment, it was not direct sunlight that passed through the slits. Light from the sun is stationary and it cannot move because light does not have a surface. Radiants emitted from the sun went through the slits and behaved like wave radiants.

          Einstein was completely wrong. His abstract theory about how abstract observers "see" abstract events differently is wrong. This is what every real observer sees when they look at a real light. They see that all of the light remains near the source. The reason for that is because light does not have a surface, therefore it cannot move. This happens to real observers whether they are looking at real fabricated lights such as neon, incandescent or LED. This also happens when real observers observe real natural light such as from the real sun or reflected from the real moon, or from a real lightning bolt, or from a real firelight, real candle light, or light from out of a real lightning bug's bottom.

            Thanks for your comments. I definitely agree that eduction is "THE" important thing for the future, and that although my essay focused more on what science education at the college (or maybe advanced high school) level should look like, I would apply the same principles all the way back to the beginnings of science education in pre-school and kindergarten: it shouldn't be about memorizing facts, but instead about how things can be figured out. There should be more of an emphasis on puzzles, hypothetical answers/solutions, and the process of finding and creating *evidence*. The driving question should be "How do you know?" rather than "What do you know?"

            I'm not sure we agree, though, about the overall state of the world today, which you describe as a "mess". Undoubtedly there are a number of things I'd like to see changed. But overall, the state of the world seems quite good to me, and the trend is in the right direction. All the prophets of doom from Malthus on have been flatly refuted, by human ingenuity and progress. More people live longer and happier and more fulfilling lives today than the prophets would have thought possible in their wildest fantasies (or would they be, for such people, nightmares??). And I see every reason to think this kind of progress will continue... I just want to see it continue faster and better, and I think improving science education is the most effective way to accomplish that.

            Travis

            That's a funny story about the exams being the same every year, but with different "correct answers"...

            In my opinion, the best kind of exam question is one where there is no single unambiguously "right answer", but instead lots of different valid approaches one could take to make progress. Of course, that's the kind of question that often drives students mad, even if teachers enjoy the show. But I'd say that signals a problem with how we teach science. Of course students don't like these sorts of "ambiguous" exam questions, when what they've been exposed to, what they've come to expect and depend on, through their whole educational lives, is a kind of dogmatic unambiguous (pseudo-) certainty. My vision is of an approach to science education in which these sorts of "ambiguous exam questions" would feel completely normal, proper, unsurprising, and fun to students -- because they've learned, from studying science, that this is how science really works!

            As to your last remark, yes. =) There are a number of things that are widely considered as "settled" that I think are, in fact, anything but. The so-called "interpretation of quantum mechanics" (where there is a pretty clear neo-Copenhagen-ish orthodoxy) is the biggest example, as I discuss briefly in my essay.

            Travis

            Hi George, Thanks for your comments. I will check out your essay, as I'm very interested in others' "outside-the-box" ideas on science education.

            I'm 100% in support of the idea that science students should learn some metaphysics. But "metaphysics" is one of those words that can mean a lot of different things, so it's not actually clear to me whether we agree much here or not. For example, I don't have the sense that we are bumping up against some kind of fundamental limits to knowledge (having to do with self-reference paradoxes, or anything else) in the case of quantum mechanics. Instead, to put it bluntly, Bohr sold everybody a bill of goods: it was his wacky (partly metaphysical) ideas that convinced people -- quite wrongly -- that there was something uniquely and desperately paradoxical going on. Part of my motivation for thinking that science education should include more focus on historical controversies is precisely that people who had been educated in that way would be far less likely to just accept Bohr's type of philosophical nonsense as the final word on the subject.

            Or, to return to the East/West metaphor that you recalled from my essay, I think Bohr (and Heisenberg and others) put up a sign saying "nothing to see here, turn your car around and return from whence you came" in front of a beautiful, rich, unexplored western territory. I want more students who will see such things and say "forget that", kick the sign down, and go explore.

            I hope you're right -- it indeed sounds like the kind of thing that would be a valuable resource.

            Travis

            Thanks for your nice comments on my essay. Unfortunately, though, I can't make any sense of your ideas about what is and isn't moving, and how fast. If surfaces travel at a different speed than the sub-surface material, won't the two become separated? And anyway what is the nature of the evidence for this idea that every surface moves at the speed of light? Obviously that's the kind of claim that, on its face, sounds preposterous -- so you would have a significant burden of proof to overcome in arguing for it.

            I don't want to discuss this here. Perhaps I will read your submission and comment there. Here I'll just note that this seems like a good example of something that comes up tangentially in my essay: not every alleged controversy is a *legitimate* controversy. One of the values, for students, of being exposed to more examples of (legitimate) historical scientific controversies, is that they'll then be in a better position to recognize the difference between legitimate controversies and pseudo-controversies. I'm always open to new evidence, but it sure seems like the "controversy" about whether (for example) the surface of the table my feet are propped up on right now is (in my frame of reference) at rest, or instead moving at the speed of light, is of the "pseudo-" variety.

            Travis

            Ty -

            I agree, in part. Bohr is a good example of running away from something important by slapping on a "metaphysical" band-aid. But I do have the sense that we are, and will continue, bumping into ineluctable limits, for which we need an open metaphysical inquiry. For, example, in my essay I followed the findings of evolutionary, complexity and emergence theories to a conclusion that cooperation is fundamental to survival at all levels in this universe. That is a metaphysical proposition - it is not something that can be proven, but it is "pointed to" by the science. Significantly, it is a conclusion that is also "pointed to" by religious teachings.

            Stretching the compass metaphor further, I think it is the case that as we keep exploring to the West, we eventually find ourselves in the East - but this time it is the far East (symbolic of mysticism - the unknowable). There may be wisdom there that transcends that of the East you are referring to.

            Cheers - George

            Dear Travis,

            Nice essay; to which I'll be returning. On a first reading, can see little reason not to be 100% with you!

            For now, this question comes to mind: How would that famous Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen (EPR) paper of 1935 be treated under your proposal?

            For, in my experience, there still tend to be categories -- like "winners" and "losers" -- in discussions of historical controversies.

            And: I suspect that you and I might differ on this one?

            Thanks, and best regards; Gordon

              Hi Gordon. Re: EPR, I guess I'd just say that when students learn quantum physics, they should learn about the EPR-Bohr controversy. Of course, some people would say they already learn about that -- by reading the footnote in the textbook where it says (paraphrasing) "Some senile old idiots, like Einstein, couldn't accept the brilliant new theory, but Bohr completely and totally refuted their arguments. Just trust us on this".

              I'd say that instead of this kind of absurd indoctrination, students should actually learn what Einstein was really worried about. I don't think education should be in the business of picking winners and losers; it should be in the business of clearly explaining the arguments and evidence on all sides. This would have the effect of leaving people more free to decide on such issues for themselves, which is a good thing -- but of course the important thing is that science is, by definition, evidence- (not authority-) based. So if science is going to be taught scientifically, it simply *has* to be done this way.

              Travis

              Travis:

              Re EPR-Bohr, students would learn that Bell wrote (without paraphrasing): "While imagining that I understand the position of Einstein ..., as regards the EPR correlations, I have very little understanding of his principal opponent, Bohr," Bell (2004:155).

              And I'm with Bell here, 100%.

              But I'm against Bell (100%) when he cites Einstein (from Schilpp 1949) and writes (Bell 2004: 86): "If nature follows quantum mechanics in these correlations, then Einstein's conception of the world is untenable."

              So, in developing your (let's say, 100% agreed) proposal; what are you, as Department Head, to do with me: A teacher that takes a strong stand on issues [as above] so that students have a very firm position against which to test and hone their arguments?

              PS: Trying to be helpful; is this where you might confront me with some experimental results? If so, which, please? For you have a very enthusiastic teacher on your hands here; one that's keen to learn!

              Gordon

              Hi Travis,

              an interesting approach to the question, limiting the interpretation of it to the teaching /learning of physics. Your's seems to me quite an optimistic and achievable plan. There does also need to be a culture in which it is not considered nutty to find controversy and attempt to resolve it, rather than just accepting what is taught.

              Good luck, Georgina

                Hi Georgina, thanks for your comments. I definitely attempted to answer the question in a way that was realistic and achievable (and closely related to fqxi's focus areas) as opposed to highly speculative and pie-in-the-sky. It's of course good and important to think outside the box and imagine speculative possibilities. But if we really want to steer the future in a positive direction, it's also pretty important that the steering wheel be something that we can actually grasp and control!

                So, yeah, I appreciate your phrase "optimistic and achievable" very much. =)

                Best,

                Travis

                9 days later

                Travis,

                I agree that the chronological steps leading to scientific conclusions are quite important and perhaps illuminating for the impressionable science student, but I can't help but feel that failing is more recent in methodology for teaching science. Too much focus of late in American education, beset by competition in global tests, is on teaching to the test. Certainly historical perspective is lost when the emphasis is on scientific conclusion and not the discovery nuance.

                By "traditional science education," do you mean a test-based focus? Not dealing with a lot of physics and chemistry in my work, in retirement I have worked on this deficiency by reviewing my understanding of physics and chemistry through "The Great Courses," DVD of instruction which certainly look at steps of discovery concerning relativity, particle physics and such.

                The Common Core program pushed by the federal government doesn't have this approach, seeming to push instead testing and privatization of education.

                Your essay is well-written and focused on needed "a back to the future" perspective, but I wonder how we accomplish that in the current climate that demonizes public education?

                Jim