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

        Hi Jim, Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I certainly agree that there are more (and arguably bigger) problems in education generally, than just the problem of science being taught too un-historically / too dogmatically. In particular, I agree that all the testing -- and the "teaching to the test" that inevitably results -- is a big problem. You also bring up the private vs. public distinction, but in a way I don't really understand: top down mandates from the government (e.g., "Common Core") seem to me to be an inherent aspect of *public* education. So I'm confused about why you suggest that such things "seem to push ... privatization". I'd actually like to see something much closer to a free market in education, where people could vote with their dollars and legs and innovation and success would win out (instead of being stifled by entrenched and self-serving bureaucracies, unions, etc.). But this is an argument for a different day. =) My goal in this essay was not to try to solve all the world's problems in one fell swoop, because that is frankly pretentious and unrealistic, but instead to point to one thing that I think could realistically be improved in a reasonable amount of time and which would have a significant and positive impact on future generations.

        Best,

        Travis

        Hi Travis,

        Great essay! I agree with you; science education is very important for the progress of science. In your essay, you raised some interesting reasons for improving education. I like how you linked the history of science with the present and the future.

        In my essay Improving Science for a Better Future, I touched upon the importance of improving education to accelerate the progress of science. I would be glad to receive your opinion.

        Best regards,

        Mohammed

          Hi Mohammed, I will definitely check out your essay -- I'm very interested in what others have to say about how to improve science education. Thanks for the tip!

          Travis

          10 days later

          Dear Travis,

          Wonderful deep essay on the very important issue for the future of Humanity! I totally agree with you:

          «Science education thus inadvertantly tends to make science appear authoritarian and dogmatic.»

          «Why not bring" real science "into the classroom, from the beginning, so that everyone can learn it, benefit from it, and apply it to the puzzles whose resolutions (or lack thereof) will shape humanity's future? One possible way of doing this is to radically revise not just how we teach, but what we teach - in particular to fuse scientific content with scientific method by explicitly teaching the historical discovery process of major scientific conclusions. Such an approach to science education is not a new idea.»

          «... we can and should speed and smooth our path to the future by refocusing science education around historical scientific controversies and their resolutions. This would, in effect, crowdsource innovation by putting a greater number of individuals in a much greater position to make the kinds of revolutionary discoveries that will uplift and liberate our descendants.»

          «In a world where science education focused on historical controversies, the road to the future would become a freshly-paved multi-lane super-highway, headed West. But to prepare ourselves to travel down that road, we need to do a better job of looking back and learning from the part of the road already traveled. That's why I say: back ... to the future!»

          Quite right, the education system should be geared to the training and education of creative individuals. In basic science now "crisis of representation and interpretation", "crisis understanding", deep methodological crisis. And not only in physics, but also mathematics - "the loss of certainty " (Morris Kline). Can also be reduced, as an example, the article Alexander Zenkin SCIENTIFIC COUNTER-REVOLUTION IN MATHEMATICS.

          That search for buried primordial meanings, "return to origins" (Husserl "Origin of Geometry"), can give a solid foundation of basic science. In education needs a large Revolution corresponding to the Information era, but not "reform". So, right : «back ... to the future!»

          It's time. We start the path. The New Era and a New Generation demanded action.

          I invite you to my essay "Protogeometer: Falling Into Future".

          I wish you good luck!

          All the Best,

          Vladimir

          7 days later

          • [deleted]

          • Post #26

          Travis,

          Having a master's degree in History of Science, and having taught introductory astrophysics with a strong historical approach over the past 20 years, I found your essay particularly interesting. The two case studies that you present, Ptolemy vs Copernicus and Dalton vs Avogadro, are well chosen, and well explained.

          To teach a controversy well, to go beyond just saying "there was a controversy and it was resolved", you need to go into the details: for example, as you indicate, you need to appreciate the fact that, in Ptolemy's theory, the motion of each planet on its major epicycle is "locked" to the Sun, a fact that was "pointing" toward Copernicus' solution that the planets revolve around the Sun.

          And that's where it gets... challenging. Even though I teach to fairly bright and motivated students that want to pursue careers in science, I have found that it is difficult to motivate them to care about the subtle nuances that are critical to fully appreciate scientific controversies. Most students want ready made answers, so they can "pass the test" and get their diploma. They believe it is already so much work to get "up to date" with current science, that they shouldn't have to be forced to ponder the meanders of history.

          Of course, it doesn't mean we must give up on using history of science as a way to teach science, but it explains why this approach is not more widespread. On the bright side, there is a tendency in the teaching world to shift the focus from "rote" knowledge to "learning how to learn", and the teaching of science through scientific controversies fits well with this new way of doing things.

          In my essay, I have taken a "complementary" approach to yours. I propose that we can teach science better by "projecting into the future" -- by focusing on the issues that are the most important to the future of humanity: I call this approach the Futurocentric Education Initiative. But, as I say in my essay, it does not mean that history is eliminated: if you can motivate a student to acquire skills and knowledge that is important to the future, you can then explain the importance of knowing about the past aspects of this subject -- and I think that scientific controversies offer invaluable learning opportunities in that respect.

          I have looked at all the essays, and read more than half of them from start to finish. Your essay is part of the short list that I hope will make it to the finals, and I have rated it accordingly. If you have time to look at my essay, rate it and comment on it, it would be quite appreciated.

          Good luck in the contest!

          Marc

            Hi Travis,

            Nice work! The examples were very helpful, and I learned some things about history of science from them.

            While I agree that science education and scientific approaches to work are important, I wonder if you could elaborate on why this is among the most important factors in shaping the future? If there were more room in the essay, this is what I'd most have liked to see.

            Best of luck,

            Daniel Dewey

            Crucial Phenomena

            Travis,

            Excellent essay. I am in total agreement that Science Education is the key to humanity's future well-being.

            In addition, I think we are like-minded on history. In fact, if you get a chance to read my essay (here) you will see many historical references - Ptolemy, Copernicus also make the same point in my essay: the need to cbe open to new or different thinking".

            I totally enjoyed your essay. I look forward to your comments on mine.

            -- Ajay