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: #6: WOMEN'S WAYS OF KNOWING (final excerpt!)

Well, Dewey, I'm trying very hard to understand your argument. I guess
the nub, if I can pin you down to a nub, is contained in:
***************************************************
We should help all students to celebrate and appreciate the
achievements of the "elites" of science, just as we try to help all
students to celebrate and appreciate the "elites" in other fields.

Do we? Should we? Why? Who does this serve? What have such practices
gotten us?

This 'celebration and appreciation' carries us way beyond merely getting
the 'brightest and best' into the profession. It impresses a rigid, and I
think ultimately destructive, class system on our society. I'm not against
the competition for the brightest and best into our profession. What I am
against is what we do to everyone else along the way.
************************
What evidence supports your contention that "it impresses a rigid,
and I think ultimately destructive, class system on our society"? And
what is it that "we do to everyone else along the way"?

Instead of focusing on calc-based students many of whom fit in the 5% group
for evidence concerning this "class system" of which I speak, it is
necessary to watch and listen to the vast numbers of people who at most in
college take a conceptual physics course. Most of the calc-based students,
esp in HS, are well on their way to being members of "our class." They are
representative of the more courageous end (sometimes they have no choice)
of the rest of the 95% who are unlikely to voluntarily choose to take any
sort of physics course. It is these latter people who have 'bought' the
idea that they are incapable of making sense of the physical world. They
honestly believe that they could not have an idea of their own or at least
one that was in any way worthwhile concerning the nature of everyday
physical phenomena and many will openly state this if you press them for
their ideas. If we only observe members of our own class then we see no
class divisions.

I am experiencing students trying to learn physics (calculus based)
who are frustrated because they are unable to do elementary algebra after
having passed a year of calculus. I am discovering students in my physics
and (I recently taught a) calculus course who had no understanding of the
concept of proof, and were enjoying the challenge of Euclid's proofs.

These really are not the folks I am primarily talking about. Part of my
view here is that you are talking about students who lack the basic
fundamental professional vocational skills of physicists. I'm not against
students being able to use algebra and construct proofs, but given that
they have probably never been engaged in examining their own notions of
physical phenomena and to carefully compare those notions with the
phenomena, there is much they should be doing (should have and could have
_already_ done if physics/science education was as it could be) which does
not involve any of these basic professional tools.

My view, which I think is consistent with Mark's and also, perhaps
with yours, is that modern day K-8 teachers are failing to challenge
students' intellects. This failure, I think, is a modern phenomenon.

I agree strongly that K - 8 teachers are not challenging students'
intellects, but I would extend that to at least grade 14 or even 16 and
beyond in my experience. I do not believe that this is a modern
phenomenon, although I guess it depends on what one means by "modern."

It is the K - 8 teachers especially who are not of the same "class" as
those calc based physics students you are used to, hence deciding about
them based on observations of a different "class" does little to change
their situation. Primarily these teachers are in the "class" which our
society, including especially our educational system (K - 16), has taught
that they are not even remotely intellectual and that K - 8 school is not a
place for such pursuits. One who has bought into the particular hegemony
or for whom the hegemony is transparent will tend to see this as the
natural course of things; that this is just the way people are. But, since
"class" is a social construct, things can be different and would eventually
be if we decided to act differently.

Perhaps, if we can CONCISELY state the differences in our views,
we can seek evidence that will resolve those differences.

Actually we have to go further and actually have some working understanding
of the differences and even then there may not be _evidence_ which can
resolve those differences. For example, I point to the fundamental issue
which distinguishes radical constructivism. Getting a handle on the exact
nature of this distinction appears extremely non-trivial as evidenced by
much of the writing "proving" radical constructivism incorrect.
Furthermore, it appears at this time there is not evidence which resolves
the issue one way or the other and some mighty good minds have worked over
the centuries since the first Skeptics raised their objections.
Nonetheless, it would be quite a satisfactory start gaining this working
understanding of the differences.

Regards,
Jack
ps The kilt and bagpipe are relatively modern incursions into Scottish
culture.

Certainly the small kilt or kilt as we know it today is pretty modern (from
probably the 1800's or so) and heavily influenced by the English, although
it was not unknown earlier. But, the big kilt (the long wrap imitated in
Braveheart) from which the small kilt is derived apparently has been in
existence for many more centuries. There is a series of books of
historical/science/romance fiction written by Diana Gabaldon which
describes interesting aspects of Scottish culture pretty accurately
including the clothing common at the time of the last big battle between
the Scots and the English at Culloden in 1745. The modern kilt was not
common at that time. (BTW the title of the first book is "The Outlander.")

Bagpipes have existed for at least 5000 years. When they were introduced
into Scotland is not known nor in what form. It is entirely possible that
they came with the original inhabitants even before the Romans who had
bagpipes at the time of their invasion and very likely 'salted' the region
with bagpipes even if there there bagpipes in the area already. The form
we know today, the Great Highland Bagpipes (sometime called Warpipes), fist
appeared about in the 13th century, I believe. These were scaled up
versions of one of the more primitive types of the many types bagpipes in
existence all over the Isles at the time. A number of these types of
bagpipes are still routinely played all over the Isles and of course have
spread all over the world.

There seem to be various forms of bagpipes indigenous in many Indo-European
cultures and Northern Africa. The 5K year old pipes were found in a tomb
in Egypt. There is a whole collection of world and historic bagpipes at
the Three Rivers Museum at Oxford(?). The collection is described
extensively in a monograph produced by a past curator of the collection.

Dewey


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dewey I. Dykstra, Jr. Phone: (208)385-3105
Professor of Physics Dept: (208)385-3775
Department of Physics/MCF421/418 Fax: (208)385-4330
Boise State University dykstrad@bsumail.idbsu.edu
1910 University Drive Boise Highlanders
Boise, ID 83725-1570 novice piper

"Physical concepts are the free creations of the human mind and
are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external
world."--A. Einstein in The Evolution of Physics with L. Infeld,
1938.
"Every [person's] world picture is and always remains a construct
of [their] mind and cannot be proved to have any other existence."
--E. Schrodinger in Mind and Matter, 1958.
"Don't mistake your watermelon for the universe." --K. Amdahl in
There Are No Electrons, 1991.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++