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: Energy

On Sun, 23 Sep 2001, Michael Bowen wrote:
Such a response seems a bit Draconian to me. Over the past century,
cutting-edge physical theory has become so esoteric and (in many cases)
detached from everyday experience, that it would be difficult if not
impossible to teach introductory courses in a meaningful way without
glossing over some known truths (that is, deviating from the exact), at
least in the beginning.

After many discussions about this point I came up with a possible answer:
It's OK to oversimplify even to the point of error as long as this does
not give your students learning barriers. A classic example is the "solar
system" model of the atom. This model is wrong, but it apparently doesn't
destroy student's minds and prevent them from ever becoming chemists.
Also, it is USEFUL, so if we banned the "solar system" atomic model from
all textbooks, we would have to give up a valuable conceptual tool.

Slightly hidden in the above:

IT'S OK TO BE WRONG!

Is this blasphemy? Not if we realize that ANY simplification of a concept
is a distortion. Even "concepts" themselves are distortions, since they
are models, not reality.

Said another way: if our goal is to avoid error under any circumstances,
then our goal cannot also be to educate others, because in many cases the
two are mutually exclusive.



((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb@eskimo.com http://www.amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA 206-789-0775 freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L