Re: [Phys-l] Mary Burgan's Defense of Lecturing

[Brian Whatcott <betwys1@sbcglobal.net>]

At 11:18 PM 2/17/2007, you wrote:
> Since Burgan is not in science, perhaps the best response to her editorial
> was published by her peers:
>
> <http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/change/index.asp?key=992>
>
> Thanks to someone who posted this on another list.  Hake hardly needed to
> rebut the editorial.
>
> John M. Clement
> Houston, TX

This sentiment of John's is puzzling. Am I to conclude that a
professor of teaching/learning at PenState(Berks), is the peer
 of a non-science person, and so does not qualify for him as being
"in Science"?

 She appears to understand the concept of controlled experiment
 - though it be of liveware: she refers to the literature at every
 assertion.
   I ask myself then: just what DOES qualify as science: someone
who weaves elaborate theories of the unobservable? -  as it might
 be strings or the events at the first millisecond of creation?
It is a puzzle.


Brian Whatcott    Altus OK    Eureka!