To Rick & Bea Tarara, and others who commented on the sequence of
teaching biology, chemistry, physics. Hi!
Let me inject some of my thoughts. It is correct that in order to
"seriously" learn biology, you must know chemistry, for learning chemistry
you must know physics, to learn physics you must know mathematics and
to learn mathematics you should have a solid foundation in logic.
Does it follow that we start formal logic in first grade and continue
later on the ladder? Obviously NOT. How can students meaningfully
learn about the propagation impulses along nerves if they don't know
the difference between a mammal, a fish and a bee? Everything has
to come at the right time, and go hand-in-hand.
I think one CAN teach a meaningful course in physics AT ANY
LEVEL, AND WITH ANY GIVEN PREREQUISITES. It just should be adjusted
to be meaningful for the students involved. The key question is:
IS IT WORTHWHILE? Is it worthwhile to teach a full course of physics
to students who didn't have any algebra? Even within the same subject
such questions arise; is it worthwhile to teach the structure of the
atoms and their energy levels to students who don't know what
sulphuric acid is? Or teach fission and fusion when they don't know
what the reaction of burning paper is? The main problem is how to
teach ALL OF THIS IN A MEANINGFUL AND PRACTICAL WAY.
Regards Emilio