Philosophy of Science

[For Prose]

Many years ago, I got myself in way over my head by taking an upper level philosophy course called "Philosophy of Science". I really enjoyed the course, but feel that I missed out by not taking the class later in my college career. We focused on paradigm shifts within the field of science. For those of you not familiar with a paradigm shift, think the shift in the idea of the sun revolving around the earth to what we know understand.

 

At one point and time, it was absurd to believe the things which we now understand. Herein lies my question; how can we, as scientists and philosophers, make sure that we do not fall victim to the same traps that others before us have? What sorts of things do you do to try and prevent yourself from limitations due to not questioning things "taught" as true.

 

As I progress with my education, I always ask myself what sorts of things am I being taught that is wrong? And once we know it is wrong or believe that it could be wrong, should we continue to teach convention until it is fully understood, or do we stop teaching the wrong concept and leave out the information altogether?

 

What do you think SFN?

[Phi for All]

The possibility of the kinds of paradigm shifts you're talking about are dwindling as global communication within the community improves, imo. There are so many minds working on so many aspects of science that missing something major is highly unlikely. And improvements on current theory are on a completely different scale than the shift from geocentric models to heliocentric that you mention.

 

To me, it's all about the preponderance of evidence. I'm not a professional scientist, so I rely on mainstream models to provide the best explanations. Do I worry that all those scientists working every day around the world to advance our understanding of the natural world are missing something huge, some paradigm shift that will show we've been teaching the wrong concepts this whole time? Not in the least.

[For Prose]

And your thoughts on the many things taught that are currently under review due to research being taught as facts?

 

I get upset when I learn that something I have been told in school is presented as fact but by and large may be under scrutiny by the scientific community.

Edited October 19, 2014 by For Prose

[Phi for All]

And your thoughts on the many things taught that are currently under review due to research being taught as facts?

 

I get upset when I learn that something I have been told in school is presented as fact but by and large may be under scrutiny by the scientific community.

 

All theory is under scrutiny, constantly. That's one of the things that makes it so powerful. When a theory represents the best explanation we currently have, doesn't it make sense to teach it in school?

 

Many do take these explanations as fact, but should leave a bit of room for skepticism. Can you give me an example from one of the many that make you upset?

[For Prose]

Absolutely. Our teacher made no point to mention that mitochondria are now believed to be more of an interconnected network, rather than discrete individual entities as long believed.

 

I don't like finding out alternative information from my own researching, which means that I can miss things. While I agree that it makes sense to teach theories in schools (I made no argument against), I do take issue on teachers not making points while teaching about the possible alternatives. That ensures that as I go along in my studies and research, I can make sure that I know there are possible factors accounting for my results that need to be examined more closely.

 

Now you might say, if I am doing research, I should know those possible alternatives inside and out. And I would agree. But what if it is the possible alternatives that inspires someone to do research in that particular field because of the enticement of the unknown.

[ajb]

Absolutely. Our teacher made no point to mention that mitochondria are now believed to be more of an interconnected network, rather than discrete individual entities as long believed.

There is a question as to if your teacher is up to date with the latest ideas here. If you are talking about a high school teacher then it is quite likely they are not up to date. The same maybe true of lectures at colleges and universities who are not specialists in the field they are teaching. As for the specifics of your example, I have no idea what you should expect different people to know.

 

I don't like finding out alternative information from my own researching, which means that I can miss things. While I agree that it makes sense to teach theories in schools (I made no argument against), I do take issue on teachers not making points while teaching about the possible alternatives. That ensures that as I go along in my studies and research, I can make sure that I know there are possible factors accounting for my results that need to be examined more closely.

The problem is two fold. The first I have already mentioned; the teachers may not really be aware of the alternatives, especially with modern subjects that are developing all the time.

 

Secondly there is the problem of time and the syllabus. It may just take too long to cover all the alternatives and points of modern discussion in a course. Also, most students just want to pass the course with minimum effort. Too much material could confuse the matter.

[For Prose]

 

Also, most students just want to pass the course with minimum effort.

 

I think this may be the real underlying issue. But it diminishes my learning.

 

If only they would give proficiency tests to the teachers in a roundabout way of making sure they stay current on the new things in the field they are teaching...

[ajb]

If only they would give proficiency tests to the teachers in a roundabout way of making sure they stay current on the new things in the field...

This is very unrealistic. People who really try to keep up with the current developments of science are not teaching in school, they will be teaching at universities though.

[For Prose]

I apologize. I have only been referring to colleges and universities, and should have stated so in the first post.

[ajb]

I apologize. I have only been referring to colleges and universities, and should have stated so in the first post.

Colleges I would say fall under the same category as schools in this respect. Universities will be better, but there are still considerations of time and the interests/knowledge of the lecturer and of course the students to take into account.

[Delta1212]

 

I think this may be the real underlying issue. But it diminishes my learning.

 

If only they would give proficiency tests to the teachers in a roundabout way of making sure they stay current on the new things in the field they are teaching...

Are you not capable of doing your own research? If a professor had to provide every possible caveat and alternative perspective on everything they said, they'd never get any teaching done, and it's unrealistic to expect them to just focus on providing expanded information on the specific areas most if interest to you.

 

By the time you're in college/university, you should be able to take what you learn in the classroom and extend your study into any areas of particular interest to you yourself. There are unprecedented resources for learning available to most of the population of the First World today, and that is especially true for anyone currently enrolled in an institution of higher learning.

 

There's really no reason you can't study a subject on your own time, and expecting a lecture to cover every facet of a particular subject in the full depth of all current knowledge is unrealistic and a good way to set yourself up for disappointment.

[For Prose]

Are you not capable of doing your own research? If a professor had to provide every possible caveat and alternative perspective on everything they said, they'd never get any teaching done, and it's unrealistic to expect them to just focus on providing expanded information on the specific areas most if interest to you.

 

Of course I am capable. This thread would not exist if I weren't. The only reason I know half of the other possibilities is due to my own extensive research.

 

And how can you actually make and believe the argument that teachers would get nothing done if they had to briefly mention other ideas that happen to conflict with what they are teaching? It literally takes seconds. "New research heavily suggests this may not be a static as long believed." Bam! Just like that, I now know there are other alternatives to what I am learning and, if I am interested, I can pursue the alternatives further.

[studiot]

 

We focused on paradigm shifts within the field of science.

 

Partly depends on what you include in 'Science'.

 

I would say that there has been an accelerating occurrence of paradigm shifts in human experience that started with the Renaissance.

 

Look at an 'old' movie and see how much cellphones, computers, plastics have changed the world..............

[swansont]

And your thoughts on the many things taught that are currently under review due to research being taught as facts?

 

I get upset when I learn that something I have been told in school is presented as fact but by and large may be under scrutiny by the scientific community.

 

 

Do you have other examples? I would think that what gets taught at the undergraduate level is on pretty solid ground, and you get details filled in as you advance your education. As you are learning the foundational principles some details have to be left out because the students generally don't have the tools to make sense of it all at once. So some things will be wrong ion the sense that the information is incomplete or is not applicable in all situations. In physics we have a divide from the older classical physics into modern physics, i.e. quantum mechanics and relativity.

 

One also needs to acknowledge that all science is interpreted within whatever the current paradigm is. You can't incorporate knowledge that hasn't been discovered.

[For Prose]

Very good point studiot, and I concur and most certainly acknowledge swans on tea.

 

Maybe what I really am getting at is that we should be teaching students what we know but always and most certainly reward thinking that might not fit into exactly what we believe. And by relinquishing along the way that there might be other ideas that better explain what we already think, then taking the small fraction of time to at least acknowledge it exists might be stimulating.

 

I have only had one teacher throughout my 20 years in education that actually pushed us to ask questions. In fact, you could even relate asking questions (aside from questions that are only about the material itself) nowadays in school to the way asking questions in church about inconsistencies is frowned upon. An extreme comparison, I know.

 

Maybe along the way, while teaching what we do know, or think we know, we should place a little more emphasis on what we do not know. I am certainly not implying that we spend lectures on what we fail to understand, but briefly touch on it, just as alternative theories should be.

I guess a good question might be, where do you draw the line on what alternative theories or idea are briefly mentioned? It might not be a good idea to have students exposed to such radical ideas as the earth is a living reproducing organism. I can come up with some ideas on how you would prevent this or decide what additional ideas are taught, but I would rather hear your thoughts on the subject...

[swansont]

I guess a good question might be, where do you draw the line on what alternative theories or idea are briefly mentioned? It might not be a good idea to have students exposed to such radical ideas as the earth is a living reproducing organism. I can come up with some ideas on how you would prevent this or decide what additional ideas are taught, but I would rather hear your thoughts on the subject...

You can't properly assess an alternative theory without familiarity with the accepted theory and all of the lines of evidence that support it.

[PeterJ]

I'm with you, For Prose. I have heard many complaints from teenagers about the way schools teach. It's usually all about what we know for certain (but which, of course, often we don't) and nothing about what we do not know, which is much more interesting. I used to give my son de-programming lessons so he didn't get sucked in. I fear that these days in the UK the narrowness and strictness of the State curriculum and the mindlessness of the system means that few thoughtful people go into teaching at this level.

[For Prose]

Mindlessness indeed.

 

I am certainly not implying a revolution in teaching style (although I may secretly desire it). I only wish for the enthusiasm for the subjects taught increase to a point where you feel like your teacher is just as interested in the same stuff as you and not just at it for the paycheck.

[Phi for All]

I'm very disappointed in the generalizations about teachers in this thread. I find it extremely insulting to the profession. Perhaps the problem doesn't lie with all of them.

[ajb]

I fear that these days in the UK the narrowness and strictness of the State curriculum and the mindlessness of the system means that few thoughtful people go into teaching at this level.

Do you have examples here?

 

The mathematics and physics at A-level seems okay to me. All the mathematics is very well-founded and the students won't really be in a position to find any real problems. They would need to study foundational mathematics, logic and mathematical philosophy before they could stand a chance of doing that. Maybe there is some scope for discussion about applications. And of course there are many many interesting mathematical systems that they just don't encounter. For example, for the courses I am involved with there is no formal discussion about groups, but they do meet groups in the course without realising it. Also maybe a bit more about the formality of mathematics and the notion of proof maybe good. Anyway...

 

The physics also all seems very well founded. Only at the end for optional modules will they (typically) meet cosmology, which could be a place for some subtle discussions. But the standard model of cosmology, or just the FWR cosmologies are very good models (with the right parameters chosen). The students won't have general relativity to make further analysis.

 

Similarly, they will meet particle physics in the form of the standard model; which is very well tested. They won't have quantum field theory and so are unable to properly tackle the model and its subtleties. I don't think they typically discuss beyond the standard model, they don't for the courses I am involved with. Maybe SUSY and string theory could be mentioned.

I only wish for the enthusiasm for the subjects taught increase to a point where you feel like your teacher is just as interested in the same stuff as you and not just at it for the paycheck.

You are talking about university level?

 

If so then teaching can be a bit of a pain, especial at the lower levels where the material is not that interesting. Also of course the topic is not there speciality, it is not what they are really interested in or spend much time (other than getting ready for teaching) on. When you get to the more advanced topics this will change. The lectures will typically be working in something close to the topics they will be teaching. This is good and allows the lecturer to express interest and enthusiasm for the topic. For example, they know the real problems and interesting aspects of the topic.

 

High school teachers are different again. They do a great job, but they are high school teachers and don't have the same in depth knowledge of science. They have great knowledge of school science and the tools to pass that on to children. They should in no way be put down for that. The big problem is the examination grade culture we have which promotes learning only what you need to and then be able to repeat what you have learned in an exam. No understanding required.

[PeterJ]

I don't think the problem lies with high school teachers. In the UK it lies mostly with the curriculum and the system, which attracts only passive and pliant kinds of teachers.

 

I was once an adviser to primary head teachers in a govt. programme to encourage them to learn more from business people. It was a waste of time. These 'head' teachers are not allowed to make a decision and must rely on instructions from the central administration, and, more depressingly, think this is perfectly acceptable. I would quit on the spot.

 

The complaint I get most is that teachers make the world utterly boring. They did in my day, which is why I gave up physics after three lessons. Teachers these days, as far as I can tell, generally do not know much or think much, but just enough to keep the school somewhere decent in the school league table competition, and the kids are often well aware of this. . .

[For Prose]

I'm very disappointed in the generalizations about teachers in this thread. I find it extremely insulting to the profession. Perhaps the problem doesn't lie with all of them.

 

I wonder if your disappointment rivals my dissapointment when trying to elicit discussions in and around the field of science with my teachers? I am not quite sure how you find it insulting, as I have made no mention of diminishing remarks of the actual competence of the teachers themselves. I, too, would then find it insulting. Criticizing one lacking aspect of something is not the same as criticizing as a whole. And I do find it lacking. If that disappoints you, well you might feel even more disappointed to know that this same sentiment is shared by my some of my peers.

 

If so then teaching can be a bit of a pain, especial at the lower levels where the material is not that interesting. Also of course the topic is not there speciality, it is not what they are really interested in or spend much time (other than getting ready for teaching) on. When you get to the more advanced topics this will change. The lectures will typically be working in something close to the topics they will be teaching. This is good and allows the lecturer to express interest and enthusiasm for the topic. For example, they know the real problems and interesting aspects of the topic.

 

And at what point do I get into the more advanced topics? When I am actually pursuing my phD? Why teach if it is not something you are interested in?

[PeterJ]

I think this is not about teachers but the system. I'm not quite clear about ForProse's complaint, but it seems similar to mine. We teach many subjects as if we know a lot more than we do, in order to make the delivery system as cheap as possible, and at high school level teachers have no time to digress from the work-plan if positions in the school league tables are to be maintained. This is maybe just a UK thing.

 

All the same, and I don't mean to simply be rude here, the narrow views of many physicists suggests a rather stifling education system, and it goes much wider than physics.

 

But I may be diverting the discussion from the OP's point with my particular complaints.

[Phi for All]

 

I wonder if your disappointment rivals my dissapointment when trying to elicit discussions in and around the field of science with my teachers? I am not quite sure how you find it insulting, as I have made no mention of diminishing remarks of the actual competence of the teachers themselves. I, too, would then find it insulting. Criticizing one lacking aspect of something is not the same as criticizing as a whole. And I do find it lacking. If that disappoints you, well you might feel even more disappointed to know that this same sentiment is shared by my some of my peers.

 

I'm not interested in rivalries. My disappointment is focused on the judgements leveled in this thread at an entire group of people, inferred from specific cases.

 

"Giving proficiency tests to the teachers", "asking questions in school is like asking questions in church", "mindlessness of the system", "teachers are just at it for the paycheck", all of these are generalizations aimed at a group made up of individuals. I'd feel the same way if you were making these blanket statements about gay people or the elderly or any other group.

[swansont]

 

Why teach if it is not something you are interested in?

 

Somebody has to teach the intro courses. Without that there is no point in offering advanced material — nobody will understand it.