Re: My view of science and science teaching

[Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca>]

> Tycho Brahe was a collector of factoids. Kepler reduced them to a set
> of three generalizations. And Newton turned all this into something
> very very different. Just a reflection caused by reading Leigh's
> elaboration.
>                 Ludwik Kowalski

I would call Kepler's laws factoids (leaving more profound factoids
to be called fundamental principles, or laws of Nature) and I would
teach them for their historical significance. In my opinion they
should not be taught as the ultimate topic in any course. Even if
no mathematics is done, it should always be emphasized that they
were superceded in the same century by Newton's laws, and that they
were observably discrepant even in Kepler's own time. I feel this
additional step is always necessary. The teaching of conceptual
planetary motion should not end with Kepler's laws.

To anticipate the next question I will say that I feel planetary
motion may be safely left at the Newtonian stage, but if a student
or more wants to know about further observable discrepancies then
the teacher should acknowledge those, too, and talk about n-body
interactions, general relativity, and the additional forces that
must be taken into account when cometary orbits are considered. I
do my best teaching responding to questions; I would rather run
out of semester without having covered all of the prescribed
curriculum than shut off productive questioning. I recognize that
luxury may not be accessible to all teachers, and I feel that is a
pity and a shame. Rigid curricula and standardized assessment are
the twin administrative enemies of true learning.

Leigh