Re: [Phys-L] critical reasoning; was: widgets

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 01/01/2015 03:54 PM, Anthony Lapinski wrote:

> they are not taught how to critically think in high
> school. 

Yes, that's a problem.

> What courses do this, besides physics?

a) In theory, a good geometry class "should" help with
that.  I like to say that Euclid's book is about geometry
in the same way that Orwell's book is about animals, i.e.
hardly at all.  Mostly it's a backdrop and a pretext for 
talking about something else, such as how to construct
clever proofs.

On the other hand:
 -- It's not hard to find geometry courses that have been
  dumbed down to the point where they don't do proofs.
 -- Geometry is not always a prerequisite for the "algebra
  based" physics course.

b) As others have pointed out, you can get a lot of mileage
 out of a good robotics course.  This doesn't appeal to
 everybody, but it appeals to more than a few.  The students
 go from being completely unmotivated to suddenly wishing
 they knew a lot more math and a lot more physics, since
 that allows you to make a better game or a better robot, 
 pretty much immediately.  It's not like geometry class 
 where (at best) there might be a promise that the stuff 
 will be useful "eventually" -- whatever that means.

c) Any science course "could" do this.  They don't, but
 they could.  Real biology (as distinct from HS biology
 class) is very analytical and quantitative these days.
 Even phys ed is logical and quantitative, if you do it
 right, as mentioned in connection with bicycle power
 meters.

---

Actually the problem is much worse than students not being
taught critical thinking.  All too often, they are taught
the exact opposite!  Once upon a time in HS chemistry class
on day one they talked about the difference between "physical
change" and "physical change".  The examples in the textbook
did not uphold the rules in the textbook, and obviously so,
but pointing this out would just get you into trouble.  On
day two, they talked about significant figures, based on
rules that were obviously arranged so that everybody would
get the same answer, even though it could not possibly be
the right answer.  On day three, they talked about the
five-step non-iterative "scientific method".  The only way
to survive is to suppress any vestige of critical thinking.

Serious suggestion:  If you want to teach critical thinking,
the first step is to remove some of the disincentives.
(That's not by itself sufficient, but it's a good place 
to start.)