Rote science
In my previous post, I commented on a quote from Richard Feynman regarding California science textbooks. Here I’d like to comment on another quote from the same context.
One gets the impression then that science is to be a set of pat formulas to standard questions. “What makes it move,” quickly all hands are eagerly raised, the lesson is learned, they are to say “Energy makes it move,” “Gravity makes it fall,” “The soles of our shoes wear out because of friction.” Just words, nothing is explained.
Science is a way of thinking. Having students merely recite conclusions of science will not teach them science. In fact, it will suppress their ability to think scientifically.
A few days ago a statistician told me about his experience teaching physics students about uncertainty. He said they have a very hard time accepting that some uncertainty always remains after drawing conclusions from an experiment. I said that surely physics majors understand the provisional nature of science. He assured me they do not. He said they believe Newton received a revelation and then later Einstein received another revelation, but other than that, physics is exact with no room for uncertainty. Obviously this is an exaggeration, but there is a lot of truth to it. I’m sure these students would tell you how science is provisional (when prompted, just like the students in Feynman’s quote!) but there isn’t much room for uncertainty in their unprompted thinking.
How can this be? How can science majors not have the basics of scientific thought firmly in their heads? I imagine they were taught in the way Feynman criticizes above. They may be taught explicitly that the conclusions of science are provisional, but they are taught implicitly that science has everything figured out. They may pick up the impression that science was once fallible — there was that embarrassing business of phlogiston and aether — but now we’re beyond that. This impression will be reinforced though homework assignments and tests that never touch on anything uncertain.
There is much controversy over whether students should be allowed to question the theory of evolution. Of course they should question evolution. They should also question conservation of energy, Ohm’s law, photosynthesis, and everything else they’re taught in science. A science class should teach students to ask questions. Why do we believe this is true? How did someone first think of this? What other explanations would lead to the same result? How might you design an experiment to decide between two explanations?
Tags: science
