Lies in the Science Classroom

[ku]

In the science classroom it is widely agreed that the teacher must provide factual information. It is not okay for the science teacher to gives lies to his or her students.

 

If a small child asks a science teacher whether Santa is real, should the teacher lie and tell the child that Santa clause is real?

 

When I talk about Santa I refer not to some real person who happens to posses physical characteristics similar to the Santa Clause marketed on December but the supernatural Santa Clause who can read minds (omniscient) and fly around the world at the speed of light.

[Pangloss]

You're kinda makin' a lil' assumption there about ol' Santa, aren't you? ;-)

 

I don't really have a problem with a teacher refraining from revealing the fictional nature Santa Clause. They have more important issues to deal with.

 

Besides, kids who are young enough to believe in Santa are too young to understand the larger significance of the scientific method, objective analysis, and logical reasoning. So who cares?

 

(Or am I just completely out of touch with the level these things are taught at now? Please tell me if I am!)

[In My Memory]

I say let them enjoy making macoroni and cottonball Santas while they can.

 

Now lies in the history classroom... hmmm... are we still telling our kids that Columbus feared falling off the edge of the earth, and that he was the Indian's best friend when he "discovered" America?

[Severian]

If a 12 year old asks if Newtonian gravity is true, should you say 'no it isn't' and try and explain GR to them? Probably not. You have to tailor the information to a level your audience can cope with.

[swansont]

I found, during my time as a teacher, that a fair amount of the time a student asks a conceptual question, he/she actually has an idea of what the answer is, but wants the confirmation of an authority, and doesn't want to say something that is wrong. So I'm a big fan of asking, "What do you think?" and letting the person reason things out (in physics, at least, you learn a lot more that way than having someone just tell you) and then pointing out any errors. I think by the time a child can ask the question about Santa, they already know the answer.

[Phi for All]

First off, Santa is not omniscient, kids write letters to tell him what they want. Second, he doesn't need the speed of light to deliver gifts to all the good girls and boys, he only needs near-light speed, so it's entirely possible. And third, what's wrong with a science teacher being politic with a 7-year-old by answering the question, "Is Santa Claus real?" with a statement like, "I've never actually seen him but there is anecdotal evidence to support the possibility of his existence."

[Pangloss]

If a 12 year old asks if Newtonian gravity is true, should you say 'no it isn't' and try and explain GR to them? Probably not. You have to tailor the information to a level your audience can cope with.

 

Perfect analogy.

[Bluenoise]

If a small child asks a science teacher whether Santa is real, should the teacher lie and tell the child that Santa clause is real?

 

What you mean that santa's not real??

 

 

Waahhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[insane_alien]

well santas other name is saint nicholas and he did exist. only problem is that he's dead.

[Pangloss]

Oh great, so now we're supposed to tell our kids that Santa Clause is a zombie??

 

I think we already have a holiday for the undead!

[Phi for All]

With talk like this it's a wonder Santa hasn't gone postal like in Weird Al Yankovic's The Night Santa Went Crazy:

 

Down in the workshop all the elves were making toys

For the good Gentile girls and the good Gentile boys

When the boss busted in, nearly scared 'em half to death

Had a rifle in his hands and cheap whiskey on his breath

From his beard to his boots he was covered in ammo

Like a big fat drunk disgruntled Yuletide Rambo

And he smiled as he said with a twinkle in his eye

"Merry Christmas to all - now you're all gonna die!"

 

There's more but it ain't pretty....

 

Seriously, just because science deals in facts doesn't mean the full truth about every subject needs to be told to every child. How graphic do you want them to be when a child asks questions about a dead relative or the effects of a bomb?

[silkworm]

The science teacher should just ask, Santa who? Or, better yet, say "Science only deals with nature."

 

But what's bad is we generally have idiots teaching science and botch it while teaching it which leads to misperceptions and ultimately misunderstanding of science for those who don't obsess over it. Now, I don't mean these people are idiots as in their unintelligent and unknowledgeable. I mean they're idiots in the sense that when asked a question they either know nothing about or don't know how to answer they make something up and give out misinformation that will forever scar the brains of those listening. I'd say 90% of professors lie like this and it's really really unfortunate.

[starbug1]

The science teacher should just ask, Santa who?

 

This works for about one second...the time it took you to give them the runaround, they answer "Santa Claus" and it's back to square one.

 

I believe it's called a white lie. Every teacher finds a way to answer tricky questions like these in their own way. If a parent can do it, a teacher can, and oftentimes they're both.

[swansont]

But what's bad is we generally have idiots teaching science and botch it while teaching it which leads to misperceptions and ultimately misunderstanding of science for those who don't obsess over it. Now, I don't mean these people are idiots as in their unintelligent and unknowledgeable. I mean they're idiots in the sense that when asked a question they either know nothing about or don't know how to answer they make something up and give out misinformation that will forever scar the brains of those listening. I'd say 90% of professors lie like this and it's really really unfortunate.

 

90% of professors? My experience has been different than yours, I guess. In grade school/high school there's more of a problem (and especially so in Kansas biology classes) but at the university level? Do you have some examples?

[Severian]

I'd say 90% of professors lie like this and it's really really unfortunate.

 

Certainly in physics (my subject) this isn't the case. At a low level, eg Newtonian mechanics, the students can't ask a question which the professor can't answer. At high levels, eg Quantum Field Theory, there is no shame in not knowing the answer to a question, so professors usually are happy to admit they don't know.

 

I think a bigger problem is that professors sometimes assume a way of thinking, since that is how they think and how their fellows think. But often the student thinks in a rather different (and quite wrong) way. This assumption means that the student may get completely the wrong end of the stick, and afterwards think they were being told a lot of rubbish when they weren't.

 

I even see this pehnomenon on this site...

[silkworm]

Examples from last week.

 

My biology professor (PhD) explained the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics by saying that when class is over there's more energy and everyone will leave and it's very disorganized. She also botched many parts of fundamental chemistry.

 

My physics teacher (does engineering work for NASA and Boeing) had a dialogue with me in the middle of class asking me what you call an atom that has a different number of protons and electrons. I was like, "A different atom?" He was like, "Noooo." I was like, "Wait, maybe I misunderstood the question." He asked "What do you call two atoms with a different number of protons?" I realized he was talking about isotopes, and I said, "Those are different atoms. The number of protons defines the atoms. The number of neutrons can differ and two atoms with different numbers of neutrons but the same number of protons are isotopes of the same atoms and are not affected chemically only physically. Differing the numbers of electrons from protons will give you ions." He just shut up and moved on and I looked around the room and kept telling everyone I'm right to help not screw them up. We had a major problem with the earlier when I explained that hydrogen does not have a neutron. Everyone thought I was crazy.

 

My Calc 3 teacher (PhD) is pretty solid but he makes ridiculous graphical mistakes sometimes when he's showing us something geometrically. It happens, I just wish he'd be a bit more careful. He's a million years better than my Calc 2 teacher who couldn't answer many of his own homework problems and try to give us a botched explaination that would take a very long time before looking it up himself. What happened at that point is that we were given stacks of notecards to accompany us on tests. That's always a good sign.

 

I got in many philosophical arguments with my General Chemistry teacher, who probably should not be allowed to drive. No matter how hard I tried I couldn't convince her that you can measure something to be 2.0 cm on a meter stick. She thought that a right on measurment would automatically limit your figures. You can imagine how the rest of the class was.

 

I'm tutoring a guy in College Algebra who has a teacher that seems to do a pretty good job, but her achilles (sp?) heel are signs (positive and negative).

 

The other PhDs in the chemistry department are pretty solid, but the chair is incapable of teaching. Good scientist though. He answers questions by making stuff up sometimes, but a lot of times he'd say he was making it up.

 

Basically, in my experience, you're going to have a problem with people talking about stuff they know nothing about unless you get the old guys who take teaching seriously. You basically have to continually scream at any TA to shut the Hell up to keep them from poisoning your mind. They botch things more than anyone.

[swansont]

Examples from last week.

 

...

My physics teacher (does engineering work for NASA and Boeing) had a dialogue with me in the middle of class asking me what you call an atom that has a different number of protons and electrons. I was like' date=' "A different atom?" He was like, "Noooo." I was like, "Wait, maybe I misunderstood the question." He asked "What do you call two atoms with a different number of protons?" I realized he was talking about isotopes, and I said, "Those are different atoms. The number of protons defines the atoms. The number of neutrons can differ and two atoms with different numbers of neutrons but the same number of protons are isotopes of the same atoms and are not affected chemically only physically. Differing the numbers of electrons from protons will give you ions." He just shut up and moved on and I looked around the room and kept telling everyone I'm right to help not screw them up. We had a major problem with the earlier when I explained that hydrogen does not have a neutron. Everyone thought I was crazy.

[/quote']

 

 

Two atoms with different numbers of protons (and thus electrons) are different elements. Isotopes are the same element but different numbers of neutrons.

 

Hydrogen can have neutrons. Often we call it Deuterium (H-2) or Tritium (H-3), but they are isotopes of Hydrogen.

 

So it's hard to see how the professor necessarily lied. Perhaps you misinterpreted the questions.

 

———

 

It's hard to evaluate what happened here, because of the phenomenon that Severian described. It's the "whisper" game (Simpsons reference: "purple monkey dishwasher") taken to the next level, because not only is it the words, but the comprehension that has to get passed along. I used to teach, and saw it all the time — students swearing that I told them "Momentum is always conserved" but forgetting (or not connecting) the part about "no net external force."

 

So it's entirely possible that the professors are saying one thing and you are recalling the details a little differently, or forgetting a crucial part because you don't understand it's crucial. Then you discover it's wrong, but don't know where the true fault lies.

[silkworm]

Trust me swansonst. He was looking for isotopes (which he alluded to before he asked if there were any chemistry majors in the room (me)), and when we were talking about H we weren't talking about isotopes of H, we were talking about H. The question was simply about subatomic particles, specifically what makes up an atom. Hydrogen was used as an example and my argument was that it was a bad example because it didn't have a neutron. I realize now I said atom earlier when it would have been more clear if I'd have said element, I'm sick and dizzy. Excuse me.

[bascule]

The science classroom is an excellent example of why scientific information can't be authority-based but must instead be built on a structure of mutually supporting evidence. Obviously science teachers are going to teach you things that are wrong. You have to learn to look for the evidence where it lies yourself and internally falsify misinformation you have been given. If something sounds weird to you, investigate for yourself, don't just depend on authority.

[Severian]

The science classroom is an excellent example of why scientific information can't be authority-based but must instead be built on a structure of mutually supporting evidence.

 

Hardly. When I am teaching my course on QED, am I expected to do high energy scattering experiments (e.g. [math]e^+e^- \to \mu^+\mu^-[/math]) and produce evidence for the theory before progressing?

 

Some things need to be taken on trust.

[bascule]

Should we simply trust Einstein that "God does not play dice" and that strong determinism is true?

 

Some faith in authority is in order, but it must be coupled with a skeptical attitude toward questioning what is presented to you on sheerly authoritarian terms, especially if it is not evidence-based or contradicts evidence presented elsewhere.

 

I do have trust in authorities, so long as what is given to me is logically consistent with the information I have gathered to date. If what is presented to me is not logically consistent with my system of knowledge, that either means there are inaccuracies in my system of knowledge or inaccuracies in what is being presented to me.

 

At this point, as a skeptic, I seek out the source of the inaccuracies through research.

 

Blind faith in an authority is, of course, an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy... just because Einstein believed fervently in strong determinism does not make it so.

 

Truth lies in mutually supporting evidence which outweighs evidence to the contrary.

[Pangloss]

I agree with you on that Sev, but Bascule has a valid point as well, IMO. You read things or you learn things in class and you take them to heart, but as you learn more you either consciously or unconsciously confirm and cross-check what you've learned before. That doesn't mean repeating every experiment, but it does mean both reading and comprehending multiple sources and different/differing observational data.

 

In fact you *have* to do this if you want to pursue graduate studies. Try defending a dissertation on "because Professor Sevarian said so" and you'll probably be in some trouble.

 

Your students aren't going to take your QED lecture on faith except in one place and one place only: On your examinations! There the word of Professor Sevarian is a matter of faith. Everywhere else... not so much. (grin)

[zyncod]

I do have trust in authorities, so long as what is given to me is logically consistent with the information I have gathered to date. If what is presented to me is not logically consistent with my system of knowledge, that either means there are inaccuracies in my system of knowledge or inaccuracies in what is being presented to me.

 

Actually, I tend to find that the problems don't really crop up in logic, per se, but in seemingly innocent inconsistencies. Like when I'm reading a paper and I see that the authors all of a sudden start using nonparametric tests where before they were using the standard t test. Both are perfectly valid, but nonparametric tests are easier to play with. So I go back over the paper with a fine tooth comb and sometimes find that a lot of their points aren't nearly as strong as they make them out to be.

 

The point is, you're subject to so much utterly new information each and every day that you cannot possibly make really "logical" judgements about which to trust and which not to. And you'll be okay, most of the time, accepting information from the authorities. But if anything seems a little odd, even though it may be perfectly valid, investigate. In the worst case, you'll learn something new.