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: Teaching science on the edge of knowledge




Over the weekend I attended a conference on teaching non-majors
introductory astronomy classes. In passing, one of the speakers asked,
"How do we handle alternative theories and gaps in our understanding of
the universe?"

If you actively promote the point of view that all of our understanding of
science is based on models that we have constructed to predict our
observations, then alternative theories are not really a problem. By doing
this you admit up front that there are possible alternative models which
might replace the existing standard models. In other words nothing is
sacred and all theories are subject to change. The students need to
understand that we use the current models, but then construct new ones or
extend the current ones as needed. Students need to understand that what
they learn at first is based on a particular sometimes simplified model, and
that they must personally replace or supplement that model with a new one
when they dig into more details.

This in a sense is getting at the nature of science (NOS). You will find
that students come into your class with a basic misunderstanding of this.
They think that the word law refers to an absolute truth because they have
been told this by science teachers and books. They have never considered
that a law is merely a relationship which is valid within a prescribed range
of conditions (Newton's laws, Boyle's law ...). Many of them take an
absolutist view of science because they have been taught it the way you
might teach revealed theological truth. Part of our job is to help them
understand NOS.

So by all means they should be exposed to theories which are not currently
accepted, but which do a good job of fitting the existing evidence. Along
the way they should also be exposed to the idea that scientists and educated
people could be biased such as Galileo's detractors who refused to look
through a telescope because the "images were not real". Or consider how
Einstein persisted in raising objections to QM, how Boltzmann committed
suicide before his theory became scientific canon, or how MDs continued to
wear bloodstained wool coats long after there was clear evidence for
antiseptic operating conditions. Paradigm change takes time.

I would point out that form my point of view intelligent people are
rejecting actively fighting the evidence that there are alternative methods
of teaching that yield much better results in the long term than the current
methods. This is another example of a paradigm which needs changing.
Perhaps the faculty who object to an alternative theory being included in a
seminar should also be subject to a paradigm change. Their theology was
being challenged.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX