
Apollo Astronauts Didn't Need Heavy Boots - frisco
http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~det/phy2060/heavyboots.html
======
RiderOfGiraffes
Some time ago (and I really ought to spend some time trying to track down the
original source) there was a questionaire in the UK. One question was

    
    
      "Does the Earth go around the Sun,
       or the Sun go around the Earth?"
    

The followup question was

    
    
      "How long does it take?"
    

Of those who got the first one right (remember that, they got it right) nearly
80% gave an answer on the followup that amount to "about a day."

I have a mental model of how this can happen. For ordinary people on the
street, the Sun goes around the Earth and it takes about a day. That's what
they see, that's what they experience, and to them, that's what matter.
Moreover, using the Earth as your frame of reference, they're right.

However, it's been drilled into them as an unattached, unassociated,
irrelevant-to-them "fact" that the Earth goes around the Sun. When presented
with the first question, then, they parrot that answer, with no idea of what
that actually means.

This doesn't, therefore, mean they're stupid. It just means that they have a
mental model of the world that works perfectly well for them, and they've been
confused by "facts" that have no use.

I'm not arguing it's good, or right, but at least it helps me understand how
otherwise perfectly functional people can appear so stupid and irrational.

~~~
Herring
_Meeting a friend in a corridor, Wittgenstein said: “Tell me, why do people
always say that it was natural for men to assume that the sun went around the
earth rather than that the earth was rotating?” His friend said, “Well,
obviously, because it just looks as if the sun is going around the earth.” To
which the philosopher replied, “Well, what would it have looked like if it had
looked as if the earth was rotating?”_

—from Jumpers5, a play by Tom Stoppard.

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes
Tom Stoppard is always a joy, but there are often points to be picked apart.
Wittgenstein's friend's answer was simply wrong. The reason is that they both
look the same, and the Earth feels stationary. By that observation people
choose the model that feels more correct and relevant.

~~~
Herring
I think it's valid to assume that this was before the (galilean) principle of
relativity. Even today many (most?) people don't know that it's ok to choose
either model.

------
m104
To those who may think that a lack of scientific understanding by the general
population is not of significant concern, I know of no better quotation than
the following:

"We've arranged a civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly
depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost
no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for
disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this
combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces."

    
    
      - Carl Sagan, interview with Anne Kalosh, 1995

~~~
kiba
It is inefficent for everybody to learn to about science. It is better to let
them specialize in whatever they're good at. This allow advanced division of
labor so that we can have a really sophisticated civilization.

It's a tradeoff.

~~~
nebula
_It is inefficient for everybody to learn to about science._

I agree it's inefficient for everybody to learn advanced science; but basic
science? Gravity for Newton's sake? Don't people spend around 10 years going
through basic education? What are they learning in those 10 years if they
can't even understand a tiny bit of how the world that we live in functions?

Also, if you have read the article it's not just a failure to understand
gravity, there was a severe lack of ability to apply logic (even by the TA
that was teaching logic!). Well that says something about the education
system.

I would argue that everyone should learn at least the basics of science, and
appreciate the fact that this marvelous civilization that we are living in is
shaped by the very science that they don't fully comprehend.

------
Silentio
>Two students asked if I was going to continue asking them about things they
had never studied in the class.

I'm in grad school and people still ask this question after tests. Many of my
peers expect only to be asked questions that have already been asked during
the course of instruction, or at least ones that resemble them very closely. I
think this is pretty good evidence that people are only in school for the
degree and not for the skills and practice of thinking/wondering/exploring on
their own.

This might have something to do with our generally rather antiquated public
educational system that basically beats "wondering" out of students heads in
favor of industrial education.*

*This is not true of all teachers or all schools systems, but it applies to much of my experience.

~~~
dagobart
Sorry that I intercept, but that <em>there are</em> "people [who] still ask
this question" is an indicator only for that <em>there are</em> people "only
in school for the degree" but not for that people <em>in general</em> are
"only in school for the degree". Then if so, what about yourself?

~~~
Silentio
Not a bad question. I am absolutely in grad school for the degree. It is not,
however, my first reason for being in grad school or even one of my primary
reasons.

Much of what I am learning I could learn on my own by studying the books and
thinkers my peers and I have studied in the classroom setting this semester; I
know this to be true. The draw of graduate work (and any post secondary
education as far as I'm concerned) is the opportunity to think alongside
professors with a wealth of accumulated knowledge and wisdom in their
particular field, and to think and discuss with classmates who share a similar
passion to one's own. Learning completely on your own doesn't come close to
the experience of learning from and with people who share one's passion for a
particular subject.

So it's pretty disappointing when a rather large chunk of those peers don't
seem to care one way or the other about real learning and application of
knowledge, but only seem to care about the grade.

------
smanek
It's particularly amazing how high functioning people who lack basic logical
reasoning skills can be.

I have to admit: sometimes it takes me weeks (or even months) to realize that
someone I know is a complete idiot. The problem is that day-to-day interaction
is so scripted that there is no opportunity for them to reveal how stupid they
really are. But as soon as you deviate from the script and try to work
together on a real problem or argue about something it becomes embarrassingly
evident.

I've starting trying to provoke little academic arguments with new people just
as a quick intelligence test (this seems marginally more socially acceptable
than trying to unearth some other proxies for intelligence).

~~~
hugothefrog
Hah, I think I might have met you before ;)

In all seriousness, can you give me an example of the sorts of arguments you
start?

In a more idealistic phase of my life, I used to start political arguments at
the drop of a hat. Not to verify someone's political leanings were like mine,
but to instead verify that they had thought about (the) issue(s), and
developed any opinion at all.

Now I just sigh when people say they don't take an interest in some topic I
think is generally applicable to their lives.

~~~
knightinblue
_in some topic I think is generally applicable to their lives._

No offense, but you have absolutely no business deciding what's applicable to
_someone else's_ life. Just because it's interesting to you doesn't mean it
has to be for others. And if it isn't, it's still perfectly acceptable.

I sigh when people judge others for not caring about things that they
themselves care about.

~~~
hugothefrog
Fair point, and perhaps poorly worded on my behalf.

You may disagree with me, but I think there is some political, social-
economical, geo-political or even local-government topics that effect
everyone. Or rather, there is at least one topic that effects every single
person, whether they think it or not.

That was more what I was getting at.

~~~
eru
Rational ignorance may still be the best option. (From a game theoretic
individualistic point of view, of course.)

------
nazgulnarsil
Is everyone under the mistaken impression that a human is primarily a
reasoning animal? Much of what appears to be "reason" is pattern recognition
with no significant cognition backing it up. Don't think you're immune either.
We all do a lot of things that if questioned closely is based on
presuppositions that aren't ultimately as justifiable as we think.

~~~
parenthesis
"Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when called upon to act
in accordance with the dictates of reason." – Oscar Wilde

"It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been
searching for evidence which could support this." – Bertrand Russell

------
ableal
An internet oldie. Here's another one:

"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."

\-- Robert Heinlein

Much 'education', classroom and otherwise, falls into this category. Not to
mention that much of it is done by people who can't sing, anyway, or are
teaching atonal "music".

And the consequences are not tragic, either. Does anyone have scientific proof
of the contrary ?

(No, I'm not a drop-out - that's why I know ;-)

P.S. nazgulnarsil nailed it (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=580529> ).
Neatly put, sir.

------
riffic
I am scared for the future of humanity.

~~~
noaharc
Actually, we're doing a lot better now than we used to be, as IQ scores seem
to be increasing over time.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect>

I bet we'll keep on muddling through.

~~~
vlad
_Actually, we're doing a lot better now than we used to be, as IQ scores seem
to be increasing over time._

As much as any such observation may have been measured correctly, it doesn't
logically follow that intelligence itself is increasing, because of a variety
of factors. The link you posted provides some of them.

------
jcl
For what it's worth, this story is absolutely ancient and possibly fictional.
I think I originally read it in a humor collection on Gopher. We don't know
who wrote it (it's not the guy hosting the page), so it should be taken with a
grain of salt.

------
dilanj
Um .. heavy boots will help to be more rooted to the ground (because of the
additional momentum necessary to move them) and thus will help achieve a more
natural walking experience, right? Am I missing something?

~~~
juanpablo
You are right. I also think the Apollo astronauts probably did use heavy boots
for that reason. But you're missing the point of the article.

------
jgrahamc
Given that the escape velocity on the Moon's surface is about 2.4 kps I can't
see any astronaut having the strength (even if totally unencumbered) to jump
up at that speed

~~~
TweedHeads
Or a lunar module for that matter

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apollo16LM.jpg>

~~~
Zaak
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Escape_Systems>

------
oomkiller
How could anyone in a college physics class miss this one? They really should
have failed the class if they did, because they can't even grasp basic
Newtonian physics.

------
diN0bot
[http://www.bautforum.com/astronomy/2265-pen-moon-question-
re...](http://www.bautforum.com/astronomy/2265-pen-moon-question-
revisited.html)

------
nazgulnarsil
the thing not being taught in school isn't any basic fact, but critical
thinking skills. I firmly believe from all my time as a tutor that there is a
window in childhood during which children need certain stimulation to pick up
these skills, and much like language if this window is missed it becomes much
harder to train them later in life.

------
Allocator2008
This is a great story. I first recall when I first knew I was being misled by
a teacher. I was in 9th grade earth science, and she had shown a documentary
on the early history of the universe which had made reference to string
theory. String theory posits perhaps 11 dimensions in some versions from what
I gather. The teacher thought this was ridiculous and said something to the
class to the effect of, well I can't even imagine having a fourth dimension,
can you? Student Parrots: No! Teacher: Well then, of course string theory
can't be right!

Now I was 14, and it would still be a few years before I first would read 'A
Brief History of Time' and so I knew nothing of string theory, but, I somehow
knew, on some basic instinctual level that I was being misled in that moment,
that just because the teacher could not "imagine" higher dimensions did not in
and of itself mean that there could not possibly be higher dimensions in
theory. Looking back, that was the start of a distrust in me with regards to
the academic "establishment" which has continued in varying degrees to this
very day. It is one of those epistemological moments of clarity: once one
realizes it is possible to be misled by a teacher, which one naturally is
conditioned to trust, then really who else could possibly mislead one? What
sources can after all be trusted? Once one realizes the inherent fallibility
of everyone, including one's teachers, then things just are not quite the same
ever again, there is a certain loss of innocence there which can never be
gotten back.

~~~
duncanj
Indeed, I remember Hawking said in the book he had difficulty with visualizing
the several dimensions he was working with.

