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

["John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>]

Ok, a quick note.  Burgan is in the humanities,  Berks is in
teaching/learning, and my original note was referring to Burgan, no Berks.
Sorry I did not notice the discrepancy.  As to the credentials of anyone
making the rebuttals, I have no criticism.  However, my observation very
much parallels Lendol Calder who also observed the Burgan did not present
much evidence.  So her editorial has been rebutted by people from various
disciplines including the humanities.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

> 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!
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l