Back to the Future: Crowdsourcing Innovation by Refocusing Science Education by Travis Ty Norsen

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

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

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

I was de-logged... I wrote the previous post. :)

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

Hi Travis, I enjoyed reading your essay.

I was subjected to Nuffield physics as a child. Quote: "learning for understanding in a course of practical exploration, leading to class discussion, leading in turn to more experimenting and so on, with a constant interplay between class and teacher, maintained by a sense of purpose and curiosity'. The revisers of the course identified three main components of teaching for understanding: * Experiments - pupils' own experimenting to give them experience of scientific work;* Questions - essential learning aids to encourage thinking;* Models and theory - a progressive discussion to give intellectual satisfaction."National STEM centre, Nuffield physics

It sounds much better on paper than in the classroom.I couldn't really see the point of getting apparatus out or finding a bench of apparatus, spending a lesson assembling it- not knowing what we were supposed to be doing with it because we were meant to be constructing our own experiment, then packing it all away again. Followed by writing up a table of numbers, often from someone else's experiment or the teacher's if no one had got numbers from their apparatus. I would much rather have been told what it was all about.

I think your suggestion of learning about the historical discoveries sounds more exciting in an essay than having to endure it as a compulsory lesson. I think what is required is engaging teachers who can impart the passion of exploration and the excitement of discovery, which might encourage students to pursue science or retain a lifelong interest. Crowd-sourcing is a good idea but you may be overstating matters when you say "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.

Unfortunately to head west also has another meaning, Quote "If something goes west, it is lost, damaged, or spoiled in some way:"Cambridge Dictionaries online.

Good luck, Georgina

That anonymous was me,

May. 25, 2014 @ 06:28 GMT

Hi Travis,

Your essay which could have been titled "Back to the Future" is excellent. In last years essay I made the case that we got stuck with the uncertainty principle because of an historical accident. Now everyone accepts the uncertainty principle without question. Unraveling this knot will require education that reviews the history of uncertainty. Eventually we may say "Did we really do that!"

High Marks,

Don Limuti

Travis,

In teaching physics I occasionally mention some of these historical elements. I also mention in even elementary courses some of the issues with modern developments. Elementary courses of course cover basic things, which within their domain of observation are battle hardened theories. No matter how advanced physics becomes F = ma will still work with standard problems such as the block on an inclined plane. It sometimes is a little hard to make those topics fresh.

I also in elementary physics give a bit of history about gunpowder and cannons with respect to Galileo's equations of motion. It is sometimes interesting to include aspects of what was happening in society at the time of certain scientific developments.

LC

Travis,

That was a truly great essay which was a great relief to read having long been browbeaten for taking that view of QM by those who insist they 'know' precisely how it works.

I also commend and have long argued similar views to yours on teaching. It was a pleasure and privelege to meet your views on the way past in the 5.9's and have the opportunity to help the essay on it's way up.

I could write at length on QM but instead I just hope you'll carefully read the classical reproduction of it's predictions in my essay, circumventing Bell's theorem by employing a different and 'real' starting assumption, though still satisfying Neils Bohr. For; 'collapse to single states etc' substitute; 'only one hemisphere of a rotating body can be interacted with at a time', and geometric derivation of the cosine distribution on the surface of a Bloch sphere as Malus law.

The subjective classroom experiment in the end notes modelling the process has been reproduced. (I have a 'kit' to do so if you'd like it). The model predicts the anomalous data found by both Aspect and Weihs (see also my last years essay). There was much more which had to be excluded but I hope you may anyway think mine of similar value to yours. I greatly look forward to your comments and advice in any event.

Best wishes.

Peter

Dear Travis,

I share your idea. Your essay is wonderful. I like these sentences: "The idea of incorporating historical material and perspectives into the science curriculum - so that students focus more on "interesting puzzles and how they were resolved" and less on "truths to be accepted""

And, "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. Unfortunately, though, the standard pedagogical orthodoxy on this particular controversy remains "shut up and calculate". [11] Students, that is, are deliberately shielded from the existence of a controversy, and advised against wasting time thinking about it (should they somehow learn of its existence)." Unfortunately Feynman's "shut up and calculate" philosophy has become an orthodox philosophy ironically mocking other new theories as "philosophy".

If you have time please read mine and I advance KQID theory that reveals and explains the what, how and why Existence.

I rated your wisdom essay a ten (10).

I wish you the best,

Leo KoGuan

Travis,

Having had problems with my browser and rating, I am returning to essays I have read and checking if I rated them. I find that I rated yours on 5/13.

Regarding privatization, I am disturbed that forces with a lot of money are pushing charter schools w/o consulting with parents, like Zuckerburg (Facebook) with several hundred million in Newark and like Gates. They mean well but have prejudice against public education and don't consider higher cost of privatized schools and lack of accountability. That's what I meant.

Have you had the chance to look at my essay: http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2008?

Jim