Re: [Phys-L] Legitimate Phys-L topics.

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 01/04/2014 05:36 PM, Richard Tarara wrote:
> I just want to briefly (hah) argue that discussions about teaching
> H.S. and Gen-Ed physics and communicating science (and about science)
> to the general public are legitimate topics for this list.  The
> esoteric, grad-level topics (which almost any topic seems to morph
> into) are fine, but hopefully these have not driven away all but the
> die-hard High School teachers or those like me who teach intro and
> gen-ed courses at the College level.  Wrapping up a 35 year career I
> can attest to the fact that the Gen-Ed courses--those for the
> artists, philosophers, English majors, etc. --are at one and the same
> time the most difficult and the most important to teach. In these,
> whether the electrons move along the outside or inside of a conductor
> is of absolutely  no importance, but getting across what science does
> know, how it knows it, and indeed what the limits of that knowledge
> actually are is crucial if students are to make reasoned
> political/economic/moral decisions in the future when scientific
> issues play crucial roles--Climate Change just being one example.

That's all perfectly reasonable.

There may however be some room for discussion as to /how/ those 
goals might best be achieved.

FWIW, I interact with butchers, bakers, candlestick-makers,
musicians, mechanics, farmers, teachers, doctors, lawyers, and 
native-American chiefs.  Some of them get all their climate-
change information from Faux News, and some don't.

As I see it, the limits of scientific knowledge are not set
by -- or even indicated by -- a bunch of propaganda videos 
put out by non-scientists.

Also, as I have stated previously, we agree that the question
of where the steering charges sit within an electrical circuit
is irrelevant to the gen-ed audience.  I might add, FWIW, that
it is equally irrelevant to 99% of electrical engineering.

   Continuing the analogy, it seems to me that fussing over details
   of what goes on in Antarctica is equally irrelevant to the big
   picture of anthropogenic climate change.  Just because some
   propagandist lays a trap does not mean we are obliged to step
   into it, let alone lead the whole class into it.

   If the Koch brothers hated electrical engineering, I reckon
   they would pay the Heartland Institute to make a huge stink
   about steering charges, but fortunately it hasn't come to
   that.

If you want people to see what science knows, have them read an
actual scientific report prepared by actual scientists.  Start 
with the 12 enumerated points in this appendix:
  http://ncadac.globalchange.gov/download/NCAJan11-2013-publicreviewdraft-appendix2-climateprimer.pdf

It's less than two pages in a big font -- about 500 words --
written in plan English.  Reading at this level is an admission 
requirement at every college I've ever heard of.  And even if 
it weren't, you ought to make it a requirement for passing the 
gen-ed course.  The report doesn't have the glitzy production 
values of a well-made propaganda video ... but IMHO part of 
growing up is learning that the right answer doesn't always 
come in a glitzy package.

If they want to know what we know /and/ something about how we 
know it, they can read the rest of the appendix (77 pages) or
the rest of the report (1200 pages).

Last but not least, if you want them to know how science is done,
start by setting a good example of logical reasoning.  That
does not include watching N propaganda videos and splitting the
difference.  That also does not include finding some guy whose
"tone" you don't like and doing the opposite of whatever he says.
Again:  the right answer doesn't always come in an attractive
package.