

What we “know” that t’aint so... and insist on teaching to kids - mikeleeorg
http://www.reed.com/blog-dpr/?p=103

======
no_flags
Interesting ideas but I think his physics examples aren't all that great. Last
time I looked, Euclidean geometry matched the world as I know it. The world
that I can see and touch is Euclidean for all practical purposes, so I think
it makes sense to call Euclidean geometry just "geometry" and to teach that as
the foundation. Additionally, I remember in intro physics I was well aware
that frictionless surfaces, massless pulleys, and pure vacuums didn't exist.
The point is that we can often assume they do and still get reasonably
accurate results.

I'm a mechanical engineer rather than a pure scientist, so that probably has
alot to do with my opinion.

------
ClintTorres
It seems like this view of physics is exactly what John Cook was talking about
as the sophomore level of understanding, where questioning the foundations is
correct, but misguided, because of the overall utility of the approach.

<http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2011/01/25/coming-full-circle/>

I think I agree though, that the timeline of science isn't the most important
aspect of introductory/foundational teachings.

------
DanielBMarkham
_To me, as Byers suggests, we need to embrace _un_-certainty_

This was a good article, if a bit lengthy. We need to create model-makers and
thinkers. Instead at times it looks more like we are indoctrinating kids in
how to have the social traits and attitudes of the elite than how to think for
themselves.

