I agree. This concept is a good one for studying how people construct=
concepts. In "The Private Universe," I'm not surprised that so man=
y educated people blew the "seasons" question. I was surprised by the=
nature of some of the misconceptions revealed by closer questioning =
of those interviewed. Some of the misconceptions were really wild! =
In many cases, the simple act of asking the question caused the inte=
rviewee to reconsider. Maybe the interviewees never had to verbalize=
their ideas before. They often rejected many of their own prior idea=
s as soon as they started talking. =20
=20
Vickie Frohne
________________________________
=46rom: Forum for Physics Educators on behalf of Joseph Bellina
Sent: Thu 2/24/2005 4:55 PM
To: PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU
Subject: Re: In the Private Universe
I don't think the issue here is whether or not people should be able =
to
explain the seasons, rather it is a good example of how people constr=
uct
knowledge and how right reasoning with some faultly idea, gotten from=
a
text leads to an easily understood but incorrect explanation.
Frankly the cause of the seasons is that the day is longer and the su=
n
is higher in the sky sometimes. You need not appeal to a model with =
is
heliocentric or geocentric. It is only if you ask the question...if =
we
imagined that the sun was stationary, a radical thought at one time, =
how
would the earth have to move to save the appearance, that is so we wo=
uld
see what we in fact do see.