Re: Ideocosmology

[Jerome Epstein <jerepst@worldnet.att.net>]

David Dockstader wrote:
> A week or two ago Rick Tarara wrote,"...what might be more beneficial than new
> techniques in physics instruction are new techniques in training young people
> how to study in general and how to learn new things."  I've always assumed this
> is the justification for requiring non science majors to take science courses.

In theory this is all fine, but the overwhelming majority of science
courses for non-scientists are a huge miasma of unintelligible words and
phrases about trendy exciting things, they are utterly unrelated to the
students' actual experience, and are based on pure illusion in regard to
the level of the students' skill and cognition. The evidence is
overwheling that such courses leave no residue of understanding or
improved thinking in virtually all the students who take them. This is
hardly an original discovery of mine, as Arnold Arons made this clear at
least 25 years ago (calling such courses "Black Holes, the Energy Crisis
and Kafka").

Most such "Physics for Poets" courses, are just watered down intro
physics courses. Since we now know that most science students get very
little fundamental understanding from our traditional intro courses, we
can hardly expect more from the courses for arts students.

It is hardly an original idea with me that for such a course to have any
value, it must "cover" far less than is the usual case, and must be
constructed as to be very demanding on reasoning and analysis, and must
be grounded in the direct experience provided for the students.

How many such courses have you seen?
J. Epstein