Rasher Null

I don't think the arguments for maths training being useful in everyday life translates to science education though, does it? Also, very few people who learn compulsory maths beyond numeracy are able to use it creatively, as far as I can tell. For most people it's a struggle to learn and they jettison it from their minds as soon as the exams are over.

Fair point about examples of application. But if you think about how a layperson might use the SP in their lives it is likely to be something everyday and/or practical, rather than a particular area of scientific research/knowledge.

The "scientific principle" is very short and learnable. Add in the importance of critical thinking and you have the most important aspects of scientific education for the layman; something incredibly important and useful that can be written on a postcard and does not need a curriculum of subjects. As for scientific knowledge that has been gleaned from application of the scientific method by scientists - this would be far better learned informally as general knowledge at the layman level, rather than insisting on formal academic study. The trouble is that the education is system is wedded to "subjects" because that's the way it has always been ....

Is "every piece" meaningfully labelled though? Especially if continually being destroyed and recreated as you said earlier...

There will be things like memories and other neural settings that will have a large part to play in the final "decision".

That was the sort of crazy speculation I had hoped for, though I'm not sure about the essential role of consciousness....

mmmm not sure you explained the situation clearly... "The astronaut is holding straight out in front of her a 6 foot ruler, marked in feet. ....... If the astronaut rotates the ruler through a right angle as she passes"

It will trace a circle, if the astronaut is more or less moving straight towards the observer??

Hehe! In a similar vein, if any two persons disagree then one or both of them is thinking irrationally.

Surely a metre cube ,say, would yield an image with different edges contracted by different amounts, for some arbitrary motion of the cube?

This is a great thread and I've read it all, and found new insights and paths to follow - so thanks Kip et al! But you asked this in the OP- 1) Have you tried believing that you are a machine (to put it rather bluntly)? Is it scary? Impossible? Depressing? Insightful? 2) Have you read Max Tegmark's "Our Mathematical Universe" ? I'm nearly through a second reading I suspect I will need a few more to absorb it all - but there are some very interesting sections on reality and consciousness.

Glad to see this topic is getting a bit of traction still I felt some progress was made in satisfying my personal puzzlement over the "nature" of motion when reminded of the existence of length contraction. By observing the length contraction of an object one can, in principle at least, calculate the relative velocity of the object. although the direction will be ambiguous by 180 degrees, it seems. ??

hmmm ... apparently babies prefer beautiful faces according to research. (which I can't post a link to for unknown reasons).

Babies like faces best of all...

I hate capital punishment BTW , but I also dislike Kant's categorical imperative, which I believe the quote above is an example of. Just sayin' Hell no I ain't "just sayin'" ... the categorical imperative is a travesty against liberty and pragmatism. Sometimes.

I think the Pasternak quote smacks of conformism, rather than human connectivity. Conformism causes depression, not happiness, I reckon. Connectivity matters, but you only need one other to connect with ...

In the UK I subscribe to New Scientist weekly. It's not specialist, but it exudes common sense in a scientific sort of way. As well as publishing science news and articles it has a strong interest in bringing rationality to politics and human affairs, making it a rare and priceless publication IMO. And -- it's really well written!

Well the truth is I am very interested in education and the education system and willing to discuss these matters at a drop of a hat. Most people accept the nature and functioning of the education system as if it is as natural as the weather, but I have invested some time and energy thinking about it, and this is a very unusual way to spend one's time it seems.

By having only pass or fail as stepper module outcomes, with a pass being a very high score achieved at the module test - let's say 90%, for the sake of this discussion. If you don't get 90% you can restudy/retake. Remember that stepper modules are short, and retaking is very common. If it seems to a student that she cannot achieve 90% , despite restudying/retaking, then she should cease studying that line of modules, and choose something else. If she passes then she can go on to the next module in the series, if there is one. So I am advocating learning and testing, but in a solid way. Nobody should progress if they are still weak. Some students will progress further and faster of course, and some less so, but at least all learning will be solid. It is better to spend a long time learning basic calculus thoroughly say, than to spend a long time not really doing very well at more advanced calculus. What matters is if you are being forced along a path of study too quickly. My catch22 comment was wrt to Strange's statement "They are more likely to understand if they do it themselves." Clearly there is some circularity there ... you can't understand until you do it ... you can't do it until you understand. As for my sort of tautologicalish use of "too much" ... guilty as charged , but on the other hand most folk seem to know the intended meaning ...

For me, the point is that the education system is squarely aimed at grading, rather than learning, as it shuns both small scale modularization and insistence on mastery before moving on. The education system has always been most useful to those who emerge as "winners" with top grades. The rest are there to make this group look good.

I see... UK degrees are overall graded, while US degrees have a portfolio of large scale modules. The latter are usually averaged though to form a single GPA. That is my understanding. For stepper modules, I would envisage a course length measured in days for maximum effectiveness- a month at most.

Which exact point? Are you saying that observing length contraction can establish a line of movement, but not which of the two directions of the line the object is moving in?

Most degree courses.

Relativity rules without exception surely? Given that different objects within view will be moving in different ways that seems a wrong headed way of ermmm - "viewing" things. Does anything change by abandoning that conception? Fair point re terminology - was getting influenced by "time dilation" I guess...

Sure, we are broadening the topic out to learning and assesment in general. Even if long courses do provide feedback to students ontheir general progress, their existence in the form of take_long_course --> get grade from FAIL to BRILLIANT, means they are completely inferior to the stepper-modular system.