Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Nature of Science (NOS)



Au contraire,
There are such logical patterns...syllogisms are an example. You answer
concerns me because it is little like the parents who think that by
exposing their children to a number of different religions they give
them the opportunity to chose for themselves, when what might well
happen is the children never develop a framework for comparison.

Incidently, I never said that the SA or any other rational activity
would lead to truth, certainly not an inductive process...since at any
time we might have a new and unexpected experience. Deductive processes
of the sorts we find in textbooks only give you a truth based on some
authority...a profound unscientific position to take.

I just think giving children a framework that helps them think
reasonable and logically is a good beginning point, and the primordial
notions underlying the conventional SM may be a good place to start.

To say that such an endeavor is deceptive is to not realize that we
never really speak the "truth", rather we speak in terms of model which
at the particular time and place is true enough. I am suggesting that a
non-dogmatic form of the SM is a true enough to help children reinforce
reasonable thinking.

cheers,

joe

On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Larry Cartwright wrote:

Joseph Bellina wrote:
I think you need to be very careful about what is false. It is true
that there is no common piece that scientists do that distinquishes it
clearly from other activities, that is, there is no scientific method.
But reasoned action usually makes use of the pieces we see listed in the
stereotypical SM. I am suggesting that reasoned action be reinforced in
children, and that using what we call the scientific method, without
calling it that is a good template for that action.

And I am suggesting that there is no specific formula or pattern which
describes logical thinking and reasoned action. I am rendering a
falsehood if I tell anyone, 4-year-old or college student, that there is
a fixed series of steps which can be depended upon to lead us to truth.
I am presenting them with misleading dogma rather than a healthy regard
for the complexities of good decision-making.

I believe we are far better off in the long run if we tell our children
that reasoning, logic and science are complicated pursuits which do not
lend themselves to description by any simplistic algorithm. Of course
we are going to translate the concept into language appropriate to their
vocabulary and experiences.

In my early years of teaching, I was a big fan of step-by-step
formulations like "the scientific method." As I matured, I wanted by
young daughter and my students to be aware that a major problem with
formulas, algorithms and other list-driven strategies is that one is
constantly tempted to use them inappropriately in situations where they
do not apply usefully; I wanted them to be aware that dogma should
always be approached with wary suspicion.

Best wishes,

Larry

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Larry Cartwright <exit60@cablespeed.com>
Retired (June 2001) Physics Teacher
Charlotte MI 48813 USA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Joseph J. Bellina, Jr. 574-284-4662
Associate Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556