Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Science Education.

dee-em
Posts: 6,469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 1:30:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/24/2015 9:12:04 PM, SM2 wrote:
Should we be teaching more advanced science at an earlier age?

From the quality of some of the posters here, we seem to be struggling to teach basic science in schools. I don't know if it is the subject matter itself or the attitude of those who won't entertain facts which contradict their world view (often informed by faith). I suspect the latter. Either that or the level of irrationality in the world seems to be on the rise for whatever reason.
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 1:32:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/25/2015 1:30:09 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/24/2015 9:12:04 PM, SM2 wrote:
Should we be teaching more advanced science at an earlier age?

From the quality of some of the posters here, we seem to be struggling to teach basic science in schools. I don't know if it is the subject matter itself or the attitude of those who won't entertain facts which contradict their world view (often informed by faith). I suspect the latter. Either that or the level of irrationality in the world seems to be on the rise for whatever reason.

I think we definitely need to teach Evolution, and I mean the "how it works" version, not the "scientists say this is a thing" version.
trojan
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 2:37:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/24/2015 9:12:04 PM, SM2 wrote:
Should we be teaching more advanced science at an earlier age? : :

Our education system is run by stupid people who couldn't find any other job than a government job. Most of them don't understand advanced science. So my answer to your question is yes. There are many children who could learn quantum mechanics if taught by a good teacher.
trojan
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 2:39:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/25/2015 1:32:55 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/25/2015 1:30:09 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/24/2015 9:12:04 PM, SM2 wrote:
Should we be teaching more advanced science at an earlier age?

From the quality of some of the posters here, we seem to be struggling to teach basic science in schools. I don't know if it is the subject matter itself or the attitude of those who won't entertain facts which contradict their world view (often informed by faith). I suspect the latter. Either that or the level of irrationality in the world seems to be on the rise for whatever reason.

I think we definitely need to teach Evolution, and I mean the "how it works" version, not the "scientists say this is a thing" version. : :

Children should be taught all the various hypothesis of how we came into being. Evolution is not the only viewpoint that exists.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 5:51:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Either that or the level of irrationality in the world seems to be on the rise for whatever reason.

I think there is an element of that. To an extent it as if the world is shaping up for a conflict between American-backed evangelism and Saudi-based Wahabism, with the moderates on both sides having to move towards their extremist form. If there is a 3rd world war, it seems likely it will be fought by sides selected along religious lines.

But it isn't a question of teaching advanced science at an earlier age. In any case, evolution is not a complicated idea - it is logically very simple compared to, say, quantum mechanics or general relativity. What needs to be taught is not science as a body of facts but as a method of enqiry. Kids need to have a healthy balance of a) respect for established knowledged and b) scepticism, but that applies to more than just sciecne and evolution - it applies to history, politics and economics as well.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 5:53:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/25/2015 1:32:55 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/25/2015 1:30:09 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/24/2015 9:12:04 PM, SM2 wrote:
Should we be teaching more advanced science at an earlier age?

From the quality of some of the posters here, we seem to be struggling to teach basic science in schools. I don't know if it is the subject matter itself or the attitude of those who won't entertain facts which contradict their world view (often informed by faith). I suspect the latter. Either that or the level of irrationality in the world seems to be on the rise for whatever reason.

I think we definitely need to teach Evolution, and I mean the "how it works" version, not the "scientists say this is a thing" version.

Yep.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 5:55:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/25/2015 5:51:34 PM, kp98 wrote:
Either that or the level of irrationality in the world seems to be on the rise for whatever reason.

I think there is an element of that. To an extent it as if the world is shaping up for a conflict between American-backed evangelism and Saudi-based Wahabism, with the moderates on both sides having to move towards their extremist form. If there is a 3rd world war, it seems likely it will be fought by sides selected along religious lines.

But it isn't a question of teaching advanced science at an earlier age. In any case, evolution is not a complicated idea - it is logically very simple compared to, say, quantum mechanics or general relativity. What needs to be taught is not science as a body of facts but as a method of enqiry. Kids need to have a healthy balance of a) respect for established knowledged and b) scepticism, but that applies to more than just sciecne and evolution - it applies to history, politics and economics as well.

Correct, you should be skeptical using a process, not feelings. Alot of pop science is accredited in pop culture with zero or very shaky process.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 8:06:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/24/2015 9:12:04 PM, SM2 wrote:
Should we be teaching more advanced science at an earlier age?

I don't think so, SM2.

From what I've seen the biggest science educational gap is in critical thought.

In particular, non-scientists don't greatly understand that science is about detecting, isolating, eliminating and accounting for imprecision and inaccuracy.

A typical armchair science discussion is full of ignorance about how science determines what does or doesn't exist, what makes a conjecture scientifically legitimate, what's the difference between an hypothesis and a conjecture, how an idea is validated or verified, how models become accepted, what makes science so reliable, why old, rejected ideas never get resurrected, what makes science objective, how subjectivity is detected and minimised, and what differentiates science from pseudoscience.

Until one can understand such basic stuff, what point teaching quantum mechanics or detailed genetic mechanisms?
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 8:42:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
In particular, non-scientists don't greatly understand that science is about detecting, isolating, eliminating and accounting for imprecision and inaccuracy.

How - or why - are kids allowed to go through the system without being taught that?

Even someone who does not intend to be a career scientist should be aware of what science 'really is' as part of their general education. Knowing what the scientific method is is far more important than any knowing number of rote facts, however 'advanced'. If that isn't happening, the system is definitely broke.
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 12:17:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/25/2015 8:42:25 PM, kp98 wrote:
In particular, non-scientists don't greatly understand that science is about detecting, isolating, eliminating and accounting for imprecision and inaccuracy.

How - or why - are kids allowed to go through the system without being taught that?

Even someone who does not intend to be a career scientist should be aware of what science 'really is' as part of their general education. Knowing what the scientific method is is far more important than any knowing number of rote facts, however 'advanced'. If that isn't happening, the system is definitely broke.

Teach scientific thinking, and they'll absorb the facts more easily.
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 12:19:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/25/2015 2:39:17 PM, trojan wrote:

Children should be taught all the various hypothesis of how we came into being. Evolution is not the only viewpoint that exists.

Evolution is the only viewpoint that has supporting evidence and doesn't rely on logical fallacies. Until an equally valid viewpoint exists, we'll just teach it as fact, thanks.

Btw, you're a perfect example of why we need better science education.
trojan
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 12:58:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 12:19:40 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/25/2015 2:39:17 PM, trojan wrote:

Children should be taught all the various hypothesis of how we came into being. Evolution is not the only viewpoint that exists.

Evolution is the only viewpoint that has supporting evidence and doesn't rely on logical fallacies. Until an equally valid viewpoint exists, we'll just teach it as fact, thanks.

Btw, you're a perfect example of why we need better science education. : :

Children need to be taught quantum physics to help them understand that we're possibly living in a simulation. There's getting to be more and more evidence of this so don't be too hasty to believe that evolution is the only viewpoint with evidence.
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 1:57:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 12:58:12 AM, trojan wrote:

Children need to be taught quantum physics to help them understand that we're possibly living in a simulation. There's getting to be more and more evidence of this so don't be too hasty to believe that evolution is the only viewpoint with evidence.

1. There is absolutely zero evidence that we are living in a simulation.

2. Quantum Physics has nothing to do with simulations.

3. If we are living in a simulation, Evolution is one of its rules, and thus we should learn it anyway.
trojan
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 2:09:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 1:57:51 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/26/2015 12:58:12 AM, trojan wrote:

Children need to be taught quantum physics to help them understand that we're possibly living in a simulation. There's getting to be more and more evidence of this so don't be too hasty to believe that evolution is the only viewpoint with evidence.

1. There is absolutely zero evidence that we are living in a simulation.

2. Quantum Physics has nothing to do with simulations.

3. If we are living in a simulation, Evolution is one of its rules, and thus we should learn it anyway. : :

We are living in a simulation and our Creator made some of his people believe in evolution.
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 2:36:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 2:09:25 AM, trojan wrote:
At 10/26/2015 1:57:51 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/26/2015 12:58:12 AM, trojan wrote:

Children need to be taught quantum physics to help them understand that we're possibly living in a simulation. There's getting to be more and more evidence of this so don't be too hasty to believe that evolution is the only viewpoint with evidence.

1. There is absolutely zero evidence that we are living in a simulation.

2. Quantum Physics has nothing to do with simulations.

3. If we are living in a simulation, Evolution is one of its rules, and thus we should learn it anyway. : :

We are living in a simulation and our Creator made some of his people believe in evolution.

That is an assertion. You have no evidence to back it up.
trojan
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 2:45:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 2:36:47 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/26/2015 2:09:25 AM, trojan wrote:
At 10/26/2015 1:57:51 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/26/2015 12:58:12 AM, trojan wrote:

Children need to be taught quantum physics to help them understand that we're possibly living in a simulation. There's getting to be more and more evidence of this so don't be too hasty to believe that evolution is the only viewpoint with evidence.

1. There is absolutely zero evidence that we are living in a simulation.

2. Quantum Physics has nothing to do with simulations.

3. If we are living in a simulation, Evolution is one of its rules, and thus we should learn it anyway. : :

We are living in a simulation and our Creator made some of his people believe in evolution.

That is an assertion. You have no evidence to back it up. : :

Do you know how easy it is for our Creator to make you believe in evolution or a religious person to believe in a six day creation?
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 3:52:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 2:45:05 AM, trojan wrote:
At 10/26/2015 2:36:47 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/26/2015 2:09:25 AM, trojan wrote:
At 10/26/2015 1:57:51 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/26/2015 12:58:12 AM, trojan wrote:

Children need to be taught quantum physics to help them understand that we're possibly living in a simulation. There's getting to be more and more evidence of this so don't be too hasty to believe that evolution is the only viewpoint with evidence.

1. There is absolutely zero evidence that we are living in a simulation.

2. Quantum Physics has nothing to do with simulations.

3. If we are living in a simulation, Evolution is one of its rules, and thus we should learn it anyway. : :

We are living in a simulation and our Creator made some of his people believe in evolution.

That is an assertion. You have no evidence to back it up. : :

Do you know how easy it is for our Creator to make you believe in evolution or a religious person to believe in a six day creation?

It doesn't matter unless you can prove they did it. You could murder a hobo, but that doesn't mean you did. Rejecting Evolution because "this is a simulation" is just as illogical as the police arresting you for a purely hypothetical murder.
scuzz
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2015 2:42:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/25/2015 8:06:47 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/24/2015 9:12:04 PM, SM2 wrote:
Should we be teaching more advanced science at an earlier age?

I don't think so, SM2.

From what I've seen the biggest science educational gap is in critical thought.

In particular, non-scientists don't greatly understand that science is about detecting, isolating, eliminating and accounting for imprecision and inaccuracy.

A typical armchair science discussion is full of ignorance about how science determines what does or doesn't exist, what makes a conjecture scientifically legitimate, what's the difference between an hypothesis and a conjecture, how an idea is validated or verified, how models become accepted, what makes science so reliable, why old, rejected ideas never get resurrected, what makes science objective, how subjectivity is detected and minimised, and what differentiates science from pseudoscience.

Until one can understand such basic stuff, what point teaching quantum mechanics or detailed genetic mechanisms? : :

It's the ego that causes people to assume that children can't learn something it took them years to learn. The various scientific languages that scientists use are just vehicles to get them to understand their questions. Once they have a good understanding, they can use analogies to teach children what they know without using their complicated languages such as mathematics.

Those who are seeking an answer to their question may have to spend a lifetime looking for it. When they get the answer, it might only take them a few minutes to explain it to someone who is interested in the answer.

A child today can learn more in an afternoon on the internet than a child learned in a lifetime a 100 years ago because it's so easy to get the answers to their questions now. Google and Youtube videos have lots of answers to questions.
Fly
Posts: 2,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2015 3:22:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/24/2015 9:12:04 PM, SM2 wrote:
Should we be teaching more advanced science at an earlier age?

It's not that people need to learn the more advanced concepts; the layperson still shows ignorance on the fundamentals-- "it's JUST a theory..." The rigor and self-correcting nature of science seem to be lost on most people.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2015 4:44:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/27/2015 2:42:10 PM, scuzz wrote:
At 10/25/2015 8:06:47 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/24/2015 9:12:04 PM, SM2 wrote:
Should we be teaching more advanced science at an earlier age?

I don't think so, SM2.

From what I've seen the biggest science educational gap is in critical thought.

In particular, non-scientists don't greatly understand that science is about detecting, isolating, eliminating and accounting for imprecision and inaccuracy.

A typical armchair science discussion is full of ignorance about how science determines what does or doesn't exist, what makes a conjecture scientifically legitimate, what's the difference between an hypothesis and a conjecture, how an idea is validated or verified, how models become accepted, what makes science so reliable, why old, rejected ideas never get resurrected, what makes science objective, how subjectivity is detected and minimised, and what differentiates science from pseudoscience.

Until one can understand such basic stuff, what point teaching quantum mechanics or detailed genetic mechanisms? : :

It's the ego that causes people to assume that children can't learn something it took them years to learn.
That's one potential source of error, Scuzz. Another is blithe ignorance of both science and education.

The various scientific languages that scientists use are just vehicles to get them to understand their questions.
While that's true, scientific language is also a product of the inquiry itself. Until you understand how the inquiry has progressed, you won't understand why the language has developed as it did, and unless you understand how the language developed, you won't understand the state of the inquiry. So an understanding of science entails an understanding of the history of scientific language, both for its framing of scientific problems, and as a product of what was understood at the time.

Once they have a good understanding, they can use analogies to teach children what they know without using their complicated languages such as mathematics.
Math is more than a scientific language, Scuzz. It's also a set of essential scientific methodologies, and a key plank in scientific epistemology. Moreover, the strongest predictor of scientific aptitude in high school students is mathematical ability, which strongly suggests that without math, kids are struggling to grasp science.

Why is that?

Science is enabled by mathematics. You cannot evaluate how rigorous science is, how it creates and evaluates its models, or even how it forms its inferences, until you understand (at least) calculus, which we might call the math of change; and statistics, which we might call the math of ignorance. Increasingly, in a world of computers and informatics, algebra -- the math of structure; and symbolic logic -- the math of inference, are critical too -- and you need algebra to understand both calculus and statistics anyway.

Moreover, while teaching by analogy is valid, it's not the only or best way to teach.

Analogies work best when the world behaves like other things we've seen. That's great for Newtonian physics, but less so for relativity, which took so long to discover in part because it has no familiar analogies. It's great for Rutherfordian chemistry, but terrible for quantum chemistry. It's fine for Mendelian genetics, but terrible for teaching the genetic mechanisms of evolution.

Finally, analogies help rote learning, but aren't great for teaching interpretation, evaluation and synthesis -- which we need for critical thought. We have no end of entertaining rote learning on TV and Youtube. It's the critical thought we're lacking.

Those who are seeking an answer to their question may have to spend a lifetime looking for it. When they get the answer, it might only take them a few minutes to explain it to someone who is interested in the answer.
That's true only if you want to teach rote. If you want to teach critical thought, it takes more time as the domain gets bigger, more complicated and nuanced.

A child today can learn more in an afternoon on the internet than a child learned in a lifetime a 100 years ago
While that's hyperbole, there's also some truth in it, however it's only true for rote learning. When you start asking kids to interpret, synthesize and critique -- i.e, to learn to think and not just parrot -- they need experience working with ideas and methods.

That takes time, and intensive engagement. And the cost of not doing so is that kids can't tell what's true, and what's nonsense.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2015 5:44:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/24/2015 9:12:04 PM, SM2 wrote:
Should we be teaching more advanced science at an earlier age?

No. I don't think so.

The focus should be on how we can say we know what we know, how you can come to conclusions from evidence, why evidence is important, and what distinguishes a good conclusion from a bad one. IE: Education on critical thinking, and why the scientific method itself is important.

Teaching advanced topics without that can be exceptionally confusing without the proper context which can only be obtained with such analysis.
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2015 10:50:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/27/2015 5:44:32 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/24/2015 9:12:04 PM, SM2 wrote:
Should we be teaching more advanced science at an earlier age?

No. I don't think so.

The focus should be on how we can say we know what we know, how you can come to conclusions from evidence, why evidence is important, and what distinguishes a good conclusion from a bad one. IE: Education on critical thinking, and why the scientific method itself is important.

Teaching advanced topics without that can be exceptionally confusing without the proper context which can only be obtained with such analysis.

Good science education involves learning to think critically. The two go together.
TheProphett
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 12:27:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/25/2015 1:30:09 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/24/2015 9:12:04 PM, SM2 wrote:
Should we be teaching more advanced science at an earlier age?

From the quality of some of the posters here, we seem to be struggling to teach basic science in schools. I don't know if it is the subject matter itself or the attitude of those who won't entertain facts which contradict their world view (often informed by faith). I suspect the latter. Either that or the level of irrationality in the world seems to be on the rise for whatever reason.

I wish they did, because I, as a student, would be a staunch supporter of it. Learning and the pursuit of knowledge in all aspects is important to me.
Topics I would like to debate: https://docs.google.com...

Epic Quotes:

She's a cunning linguist, but I'm a master debater - Austin Powers


Economic Forum Revival Co-Leader

If you are interested in starting a political journal for the site, please contact me.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 2:25:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/24/2015 9:12:04 PM, SM2 wrote:
Should we be teaching more advanced science at an earlier age?

The public education has one goal. To make dull workers satisfied or coerced into working long hours in factory settings.

From Math, Language, to Science the education is appallingly deficit. Children are taught simple but erroneous models of things for years. Making it harder for them to adjust to more accurate understandings.

I run into this problem all the time with my own children's education. They come home with homework with no understanding of the concepts. Just hit this button or memorize these formulas. How you can teach Sine, Cosine, and Tangent without ever showing a unit circle is a travesty. It is a compete waste of class time.

Without the understanding of the relationship they then read word problems trying to find key words that hint them to which formula to use. But still not understand the the relationship between the angle and the distances.

I'm constantly re-educating my children and helping them with their homework. I understand teacher's job is hard enough to be state employed baby sitters, but the curriculum is 50% BS at best and Stunting, restrictive, and stupifying at worst.

Here's an idea. Teach kids starting from the first grade according to the trivium. Don't let any one fool you. Education is to make sheep and slaves.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 11:24:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/25/2015 5:51:34 PM, kp98 wrote:
Either that or the level of irrationality in the world seems to be on the rise for whatever reason.

I think there is an element of that. To an extent it as if the world is shaping up for a conflict between American-backed evangelism and Saudi-based Wahabism, with the moderates on both sides having to move towards their extremist form. If there is a 3rd world war, it seems likely it will be fought by sides selected along religious lines.

US evangelism has no significant influence in shaping US foreign policy. The US is perfectly content to watch Christians being exterminated in the Middle East. The claim that US policy is becoming "extremist" is just wrong. I think it's a different type of leftist extremist that is content to watch genocide without a peep.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 11:32:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Evolution is a scientific fact, and ought to be taught as fact. There is no alternative scientific explanation. For anything that happens, there are any number of non-scientific explanations. those are alternative explanations, but not alternative scientific explanations. It's good to point out that there are many things that science has not established, like what happened before the Big Bang. It's also true that no science is beyond doubt. But non-scientific theories cannot be taught as science.
scuzz
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2015 1:02:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/27/2015 4:44:26 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/27/2015 2:42:10 PM, scuzz wrote:
At 10/25/2015 8:06:47 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/24/2015 9:12:04 PM, SM2 wrote:
Should we be teaching more advanced science at an earlier age?

I don't think so, SM2.

From what I've seen the biggest science educational gap is in critical thought.

In particular, non-scientists don't greatly understand that science is about detecting, isolating, eliminating and accounting for imprecision and inaccuracy.

A typical armchair science discussion is full of ignorance about how science determines what does or doesn't exist, what makes a conjecture scientifically legitimate, what's the difference between an hypothesis and a conjecture, how an idea is validated or verified, how models become accepted, what makes science so reliable, why old, rejected ideas never get resurrected, what makes science objective, how subjectivity is detected and minimised, and what differentiates science from pseudoscience.

Until one can understand such basic stuff, what point teaching quantum mechanics or detailed genetic mechanisms? : :

It's the ego that causes people to assume that children can't learn something it took them years to learn.
That's one potential source of error, Scuzz. Another is blithe ignorance of both science and education.

The various scientific languages that scientists use are just vehicles to get them to understand their questions.
While that's true, scientific language is also a product of the inquiry itself. Until you understand how the inquiry has progressed, you won't understand why the language has developed as it did, and unless you understand how the language developed, you won't understand the state of the inquiry. So an understanding of science entails an understanding of the history of scientific language, both for its framing of scientific problems, and as a product of what was understood at the time.

Once they have a good understanding, they can use analogies to teach children what they know without using their complicated languages such as mathematics.
Math is more than a scientific language, Scuzz. It's also a set of essential scientific methodologies, and a key plank in scientific epistemology. Moreover, the strongest predictor of scientific aptitude in high school students is mathematical ability, which strongly suggests that without math, kids are struggling to grasp science.

Why is that?

Science is enabled by mathematics. You cannot evaluate how rigorous science is, how it creates and evaluates its models, or even how it forms its inferences, until you understand (at least) calculus, which we might call the math of change; and statistics, which we might call the math of ignorance. Increasingly, in a world of computers and informatics, algebra -- the math of structure; and symbolic logic -- the math of inference, are critical too -- and you need algebra to understand both calculus and statistics anyway.

Moreover, while teaching by analogy is valid, it's not the only or best way to teach.

Analogies work best when the world behaves like other things we've seen. That's great for Newtonian physics, but less so for relativity, which took so long to discover in part because it has no familiar analogies. It's great for Rutherfordian chemistry, but terrible for quantum chemistry. It's fine for Mendelian genetics, but terrible for teaching the genetic mechanisms of evolution.

Finally, analogies help rote learning, but aren't great for teaching interpretation, evaluation and synthesis -- which we need for critical thought. We have no end of entertaining rote learning on TV and Youtube. It's the critical thought we're lacking.

Those who are seeking an answer to their question may have to spend a lifetime looking for it. When they get the answer, it might only take them a few minutes to explain it to someone who is interested in the answer.
That's true only if you want to teach rote. If you want to teach critical thought, it takes more time as the domain gets bigger, more complicated and nuanced.

A child today can learn more in an afternoon on the internet than a child learned in a lifetime a 100 years ago
While that's hyperbole, there's also some truth in it, however it's only true for rote learning. When you start asking kids to interpret, synthesize and critique -- i.e, to learn to think and not just parrot -- they need experience working with ideas and methods.

That takes time, and intensive engagement. And the cost of not doing so is that kids can't tell what's true, and what's nonsense. : :

Welcome to the computer age my friend. The computers will do the critical thinking by the parrots who operate them. I agree that a few people will have to learn mathematics, etc. but most people will remain illiterate to those languages.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 5:35:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't think kids should be forced into learning more science at an earlier age, especially since 'science' generally refers to physics, chemistry and biology. I have had no interest in physics and chemistry during the only year I was forced to take these courses, and I'm glad I no longer have to deal with them.

I agree that kids should be learning about the scientific method instead. In particular, simple stats should be compulsory at high-school level. They should teach the theorem of total probability and Bayes' theorem, Bernouilli, binomial. geometric, negative binomial, Poisson, exponential and normal distributions, the normal sampling theorem and Central Limit Theorem, confidence intervals for mu, sigma, p and the difference between two means and proportions, Z-tests (large-sample mean, proportions), Student's t-tests (including paired and two-sample), chi-squared tests, the Pearson correlation coefficient and simple linear regression. They don't need to remember all the formulae, but they should be able to interpret simple statistical studies and use a stats program to do stats after experiments. That's much more valuable than learning about a specific field of science, as kids have different interests and may be interested in different sciences, and should be free to choose what science they do. (I'm doing linguistics at university, and love it.)

Another thing, I think high school students should learn more mathematics, but be given less difficult questions. Higher-order thinking can be taught and developed in universities when it's applicable to the subject. Instead, high school should aim to cover as much useful maths as possible. They should cover more calculus and linear algebra in high school, instead of doing really hard questions on elementary algebra and geometry. In Hong Kong, for example, kids no longer do stuff like the sandwich theorem, l'Hopital's Rule, de Moivre's theorem, etc. in high school. Some, like me, did not do calculus or linear algebra at all. Looking back, I think my time would have been better spent learning calculus than drilling through ridiculously difficult algebra and trig problems...
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 5:39:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Another thing that ought to be taught more extensively is logic, both formal and informal. Too many people make bad arguments because of iffy logic. They don't have to learn natural deduction systems; maybe they could use Venn diagrams and such to teach logic.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...