tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post8155427477133982703..comments2024-03-02T02:26:00.928-05:00Comments on bleakonomy: Teaching Philosophy of Science in High Schooltetracontadigonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04604381739383227553noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-74500406459198662322009-02-13T11:18:00.000-05:002009-02-13T11:18:00.000-05:00Oopsie! That parenthetical comment on the history...Oopsie! That parenthetical comment on the history of explanations of nature prior to the scientific method ought to have been in the upper third/half, not the lower. Small edit boxes, feh.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-54328272675243897732009-02-13T11:15:00.000-05:002009-02-13T11:15:00.000-05:00In my experience, most people don't understand sci...In my experience, most people don't understand science or statistics. Our evolutionary history gives us the instincts of lizards when it comes to physics and probability. That's why movies show such crazy stuff like bullets following curved paths due to motion of the gun. Our instincts are a bit misleading when it comes to Newtonian physics. And don't even start with quantum mechanics or general relativity...<BR/><BR/>I think we need to teach different levels of What Science Is in schools. The top third (half?), say, ought to be exposed to the full monty, starting with probability and statistics, then the scientific method whys and hows, history of Science, and hands on "do it yourself" conjecture, experimentation, analysis and refinement, plus the faults, such as publication bias. Bottom third (half?) gets basic probability/statistics, history of science and the scientific method (including what preceded it and why it didn't work as well), and a bit of guided experimentation. Not everyone can learn what makes good Science, but I think everyone can learn to detect bullshitake when they hear it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-40988932865490510802009-02-12T16:22:00.000-05:002009-02-12T16:22:00.000-05:00I totally agree with this. I actually have some r...I totally agree with this. I actually have some residual fondness for McCarthy, simply because she really did a good job (if one can view it as such) of wrangling the various meatheads that appeared on "Singled Out." (Which, considering some of MTV's current offerings, feels like "I, Claudius" in comparison.)<BR/><BR/>I don't expect people to bow down to some monolithic entity called "SCIENCE." I probably assume (faultily) that <I> everyone </I> knows how science works. Part of the reason I have gotten so worked up about the whole autism/vaccine question is that science has taken the question very, very seriously. The medical community hasn't just dismissed the complaints out of hand, but has sought to discern any connection between the two. I think, if more people knew what "science" means, they would feel less adversarial about it.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and while other doctors may occasionally be wrong, <I> I </I> never am.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11213051268392108382noreply@blogger.com