Essentially everybody on this list agrees that _critical thinking_ is high
on the list of goals and requirements.
*) Some of what goes into critical thinking is difficult, such as learning
to exercise an /appropriate/ degree of skepticism ... not too much, not too
little. There aren't enough hours in the day to verify everything you are
told, and deciding just what needs to be verified requires judgment and skill.
*) On the other hand, other parts of the task are easy, such as learning to
not judge a book by its cover.
Consider for example Kirchhoff's voltage "law". It is sometimes useful and
sometimes compleeeeetely wrong. Ditto for Newton's "theory" of gravitation.
Does anybody really think that the fact that one is called a law while the
other is called a theory tells you anything about how useful they are or how
wrong they are? Judging an idea based on whether it is called a law, theory,
or whatever seems like an extreme form of judging a book by its cover.
Conversely, does anybody really think they can redefine the terms and then
rename the laws and theories in such a way to /make/ it possible to judge the
range of validity based on the names?
In this thread there have been 50 messages, mostly devoted to discussing
something that provably cannot exist. The proof involves some interesting
physics, namely the physics of entropy and information. It takes hundreds
of bits of information to spell out the range of validity of a typical
scientific idea. Labeling the idea a "law" or "theory" conveys only one
bit. It cannot possibly be enough. A more elaborate naming scheme using
a dozen different names (law, theory, rule, principle, et cetera) would
still convey only a few bits, not nearly enough.
Most names are idiomatic. That means you cannot determine the meaning by
looking at the form of the words. The fact that a computer mouse is called
a "mouse" does not tell you what it does or why you might want one. With
isolated exceptions, usually the most a name can do for you is to provide
a way for you to /ask/ somebody what it means. It's a pointer into the
dictionary.
What's more, in a name such as "the Newtonian theory of gravitation" or "the
general theory of relativity" the word "theory" is little more than fluff.
The terms "Newtonian gravitation" or "general relativity" are equally good
names, equally serviceable as indexes into the dictionary.
I am aware that some state-mandated high-stakes exams require students to
know the distinction between law and theory. That does not, however, mean
that any such distinction exists. It just means that the testing process is
severely deficient when it comes to critical thinking, or even common sense,
not to mention the technical subject matter ... but you knew that already.
There are lots of ways of teaching critical thinking. Pretending to make
a distinction between "law" and "theory" is not one of them. It's pretty
much the opposite of what we should be doing.
Could we please stop discussing things that provably cannot exist?
Perhaps we could instead discuss constructive suggestions for how to teach
critical thinking, including how to deal with error-filled textbooks. As
a small step in that direction, here's a suggestion: For homework, ask
each student (a) to find something in the textbook that's seriously incorrect,
and then (b) to explain the corresponding correct idea.