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: [Phys-l] OFF-TOPIC: Basic scientific literacy



IMHO this is *not* off topic. It's hard to imagine a more
important topic.


On 12/15/2008 08:26 AM, Alby Reid wrote:
I was having a discussion with a friend and we were trying to come up with a
list of basic science topics that *everyone* ought to have some basic
understanding of.

I'm interested to hear PHYS-L's thoughts and suggestions about what ought to
be on this list.

So far (in no particular order):
* Types of Force and Newton's Laws
* Electricity generation
* Electromagnetic spectrum
* Nuclear weapons / Nuclear power
* The structure of matter
* Elements, compounds and mixtures
* Evolution
* The human body and disease
* Ecosystems (micro/macro)


0) First and foremost: Basic thinking skills.
http://www.av8n.com/physics/thinking.htm
Thinking skills can be learned, and can be taught. They are
portable from one subject-area to another.

This is not so much a topic to be covered just on National
Thinking Day, but rather an overarching principle to be built
into every part of every lesson.

This segues into scientific methods.
http://www.av8n.com/physics/scientific-methods.htm
Notice I didn't say "the" scientific method.

Also: You need to do at least one topic in depth. The
metaphor is "table with legs" i.e. broad everywhere and
also deep in some places.
http://www.av8n.com/physics/breadth-depth.htm
A student (or citizen) who has never seen something done
in depth does not have "basic scientific literacy".


1) Next on the list: Conservation laws.

This includes energy, momentum, charge, et cetera.

I got into an argument the other day with a PhD hydrologist
who couldn't cope with the concept that water molecules were,
for his purposes, indestructible. Gaaaack! You can't make
this stuff up.


2) Basic notions of probability. This is much higher on the
list than, say, electricity generation.


3) Below energy (and the conservation thereof) comes entropy
(and the paraconservation thereof). This includes a crisp
probability-based definition of entropy.
http://www.av8n.com/physics/thermo-laws.htm#sec-entropy

Entropy (like everything else) is hard if you do it wrong.
Most books do it wrong. If you do it right, it's not so
hard.


4) Talking about "elements" and "compounds" is a throwback to
the 19th century, before people knew about atoms. The 19th
century has been over for a while now. Do not waste time
on ill-formed and hard-to-learn "definitions" of terms like
element and compound. Start with atoms and molecules, and
go from there.
http://www.av8n.com/physics/atom-intro.htm


===============

Several people have suggested looking at the state standards.
That's a reasonable starting place, but we shouldn't stop
there. We should also have a discussion of what _should be_
on the standards.

Also, remember that standards are usually just talk. Talk
is cheap. Instead, look at the _tests_, because that's where
the rubber meets the road.

I once got into an hour-long argument with a high official in
the California Department of Education. He kept telling me
how lofty his standards were. I kept telling him how lousy
his tests were.