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: Middle School Physical Science Texts: dishonesty



Well, Robert, I can tell you this. When I talked to my daughter about
energy levels, and Hund's Rule, and such, her comment to me was, "Well,
wonder why she didn't tell us that?"

So you can talk about us not knowing the "why" of the universal rules all
you want. I don't pretend to know "why" the universe is as it is. But I do
know some of the rules, and I can try to explain them as best I can to a
student. I will NEVER (keyboard isn't broken....all caps on purpose!) tell
a student "That's just the way it is."

Besides....why try to teach about electron configuration in Biology class?
Seems there are plenty of topics to cover in that field that she actually
knew something about. Or should be at least.

Ruth

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Carlson" <Raacc@AOL.COM>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 7:16 PM
Subject: Re: Middle School Physical Science Texts: dishonesty


Mark,

First, I think you might want to get a new keyboard. It seems to be stuck
on
all caps.

<< Where did the "general rules" come from? QUANTUM THEORY.

And I suppose these had nothing to do with real data coming from
experiments
involving the study of nature's rules. Quantum theory is just so much
mathematical poetry unless it accurately describes nature. That's the way
it
is.

Do you agree with the rules? YES. THE PREDICTIONS OF QUANTUM THEORY ARE
EXTREMELY GOOD.

In other words, they can tell me that a red queen may be placed on a black
king below the aces in solitaire, but not above. They are a good model
for
nature's rules, but if they don't work, then nature still rules.

Can
you explain them to me within any level of why questions? YES, BUT
PROBABLY
NOT AT A LEVEL THAT A MIDDLE SCHOOL CHILD COULD UNDERSTAND.
Or, will you finally admit that these are the rules of the game, be as
they
are? THE POINT IS THAT PROPERTIES OF ATOMS CAN BE UNDERSTOOD WITHIN THE
CONTEXT OF A VERY GOOD GENERALLY THEORY THAT REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF
ASSUMPTIONS.

So, if you can explain the rules, then, why is there matter? Why does
matter
attract matter? Why do unlike charges attract and like charges repel?

<< Even for more basic questions where we don't have a pat answer, it
seems to
me that it would be better to say that "we don't know the answer to
that
question, but you might be the one to find out" rather than to tell the
kid
that "that's just the way it is".>>

What's wrong with saying, "That's the way it is," if this is the correct
answer? THE STATEMENT IS A TAUTOLOGY. IT CONVEYS NO NEW INFORMATION TO
THE
STUDENT. IF I DIDN'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO A QUESTION, I WOULD SAY SO TO
THE
STUDENT AND HELP HIM OR HER TO FIND THE ANSWER. FOR QUESTIONS WHERE WE
DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER, I'D SAY JUST THAT. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG IN
LETTING
STUDENTS KNOW THAT THERE STILL ARE OPEN QUESTIONS.

There are always open questions. But, not always open answers. If a
field
goal is worth three points, then it is worth three points. That is a rule
of
the game. When the rules are well defined, what's wrong with telling
students they are well defined?

How do you explain the hydrogen atom having one proton and one
electron? I DON'T. THIS ISN'T THE ONLY STABLE CONFIGURATION FOR
HYDROGEN.
DEUTERIUM (1 PROTON, 1 NEUTRON, 1 ELECTRON) ALSO IS A STABLE
CONFIGURATION.

It's not that you don't explain why a hydrogen atom has one proton and one
electron, it's that you cannot explain it. There is no explanation other
than, this is a rule of nature's game.

<< The former is a good scientific answer, the latter is just ignorant
authoritarianism. But, I'm just being a bit irascible this morning.>>

Tell me what makes "we don't know the answer to that question, but you
might
be the one to find out" a good scientific answer. IT ENCOURAGES STUDENTS
TO
FIND OUT MORE ABOUT WHY THINGS ARE THE WAY THEY ARE.
Why is it better than
saying this is what has been observed in nature (that's the way it is).
SCIENCE IS MORE THAN A COLLECTION OF OBSERVATIONS. CONNECTING
OBSERVATIONS
TO THEORIES HELPS STUDENTS TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS SYSTEMATIC
BEHAVIOR
IN NATURE.

You are correct, science is more than a collection of observations. But,
not
telling students that the observations are what they are is a disservice.
Theories may not correctly model nature and nature couldn't care less
whether
we understand her. However, if nature says something, then that's the way
it
is. Listen to her, and test your models against what she says.

Also, I don't have any problem with there being an authority figure in a
classroom. I certainly hope the teacher is the authority figure.
Concerning
the ignorant part, this seems a typical response in the "intellectual"
community as part of an argument. Please explain. IN MY VIEW THE
TEACHER
NEEDS TO GUIDE STUDENTS TO UNDERSTANDING, AND TO HELP THEM LEARN MORE.
ONE
CAN BE AN AUTHORITY FIGURE WITHOUT BEING AUTHORITARIAN.

This sounds reasonable. However, I hope you are not considering the
biology
teacher that was the topic of this thread a few days ago an ignorant
authoritarian simply because she supposedly told a student "That's the way
it
is" in response to an electron configuration. This is unjust.

Bob Carlson