0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
wisdom = IQ?
Some of the wealthiest people of our time are hard pressed to score on an IQ test, but clearly excel in making money, perhaps these people should compile the next IQ test.
Teaching a child to remember someone else’s thoughts on a particular subject may be a significant part of the reason that people are turning their backs on science.
It worries me that kids are turning their backs on Science because people are giving them the wrong idea of what it's all about. Questioning some well founded idea is fine if you actually have earned and appreciate a lot of basics. It is not possible for a single person to start from scratch and build up a new version of Science, singlehanded. You have to build up from existing knowledge and understanding.Science is trivialised in the Media and in much of the National Curriculum. Learning , as a discipline seems to have no place in education - it's no wonder kids are bewildered by Science, the way it is presented, because they simply don't know enough. Once they start at A level, they are brought up with a jolt and many fall by the wayside because they are just not prepared to learn what is needed.Trying to get kids to learn established and well verifiable models is not indoctrinationn - it is education. If they are not brilliant, it will enable them to have a reasonable understanding and if they are brilliant, it will give them the tools to progress Science further.How arrogant to think that the body of existing Science can be challenged by any Tom Dick or Harry. Yes - the occasional genius can overturn current models and ideas but don't kid yourself that a child who knows very little maths or basic Science is in any position to advance human knowledge. 'Questioning' is only a valid process when you already know a lot. A humble approach will get you much further.
What I am saying is that Tom Dick and Harry are not in a position to anything about advancing Science unless they already have a sound body of knowledge. The popular idea, nowadays, is that you can start from scratch, without any rigour and make valid comments / criticisms about scientific matters which are virtually anassailable.You only have to read some of the whacky posts on these fora to realise that many people just don't know the basics. Science and engineering both hang on their history.
or the arrogance of an insider who believes only he is competent to judge what is true and what is false.
Quote from: sophiecentaur on 05/11/2007 10:49:44What I am saying is that Tom Dick and Harry are not in a position to anything about advancing Science unless they already have a sound body of knowledge. The popular idea, nowadays, is that you can start from scratch, without any rigour and make valid comments / criticisms about scientific matters which are virtually anassailable.You only have to read some of the whacky posts on these fora to realise that many people just don't know the basics. Science and engineering both hang on their history.Firstly, there is a difference between teaching scientific method, and indoctrination with the whole body of scientific knowledge.Secondly, a good scientist does not seek to extend the scientific knowledge of humanity, he seeks to extend his own scientific knowledge, and if he does this for long enough he will reach the boundaries of the scientific knowledge of humanity, and then keep seeking to extend his own knowledge beyond that. The point is that scientists don't go from being dumb recipients of other people's information to suddenly switching modes to becoming seekers of new information; they continue doing what they did before.Ofcourse, the key point is that arrogance does not make for good science, whether it is the arrogance of an outsider who believes he knows better than all the insiders, or the arrogance of an insider who believes only he is competent to judge what is true and what is false.Having schoolkids question established science is good, not because they are very likely to create revolutionary theories in science, but because it gives them a grounding in how to ask questions, and how to apply scientific method in answering those questions. If they become afraid to challenge the ideas of their 'superiors', then they will have all sense of curiosity drummed out of them, and will make useless scientists later in life.
How can it be wrong to tell kids the fundamentals of Electricity, Forces, Energy etc.
Is learning your times tables 'indoctrination'? Or is it giving someone a skill and knowledge to help them cope with other stuff?
Quoteor the arrogance of an insider who believes only he is competent to judge what is true and what is false.It is far from arrogant to respect the pedigree of thousands of cleverer people than ones self and to accept what they, as a majority, have agreed to believe.
Neither is it weak-mindedness. No one is in a position to criticise, with any validity, the opinions of established Science until they have understood what it is actually telling them. How will you get to understand? You have to put yourself out and actually learn the stuff. Know your enemy - if that is how you view it.
Of course, if you really want to shake the Science world with a new, properly worked-out, theory, you need a high level of arrogance - to carry you through the process - but that's down to human nature, not Science.
'Questioning' is a useful skill when it relates to reliability of evidence - as in politics, history etc. but most of the evidence that most kids are given relating to Science is a million times better founded than an opinion about who caused the first World War.
Get a copy of the National Curriculum and see how much is in any way, shaky, before you just criticise the system.I am aware that the list of topics in the National Curriculum is far from optimal but it is far from a list of ideas with which to indoctrinate kids. The main problem it has is that it attempts to treat all students in the same way. The 'levels' thing is another issue and very fraught.
Quote from: Andrew K Fletcher on 04/11/2007 18:18:33Some of the wealthiest people of our time are hard pressed to score on an IQ test, but clearly excel in making money, perhaps these people should compile the next IQ test.But would such wealthy people really make good employees. Often self made millionaires are people who went out on their own because they were hopeless working for anybody else. If you were looking for your next employee, would you really want to employ one of these people?
You are probably right about people like Branson not making very good employees. But I think you are wrong to assume that they were hopeless at working for other people. Instead, they were lateral thinkers who thought to themselves, I can either work for these guys for the rest of my life or I can have people working for me instead and I can sit on the deck of my own Yacht sipping a glass of Champaign while fishing for blue marlin. Any up coming business could do a lot worse than have one of these guys working for their company.