Philosophy of Science

[ajb]

And at what point do I get into the more advanced topics? When I am actually pursuing my phD?

In the second or third year of an undergraduate degree I would say. The first year is typically giving everyone a good grounding to the same level and then in the second year it get more interesting.

 

 

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

Because the students need to be taught this and someone has to teach it. I am thinking of the 'core modules' that everyone does.

[Sato]

I am in the US, currently in secondary school, and many of the teachers seem to be interested in or care about what they teach, and do so to the extent that the curriculum (there is often a final exam that must be prepared for) or their class (eg, most English classes enjoy apathetic students, however interesting the book/topic at hand) will allow.

 

The one exception is mathematics. I have never come across a maths teacher who is interested in or cares about math. In fact, maths is the only class where at the beginning of the year, instead of presenting a motivation for the topic like is done in each other subject, they present information about the final exam that will be prepared for. Two years ago my geometry teacher introduced the class by angrily lamenting the difficulty of the class and how hard everyone will have to work to earn a good grade. Last year my algebra / trigonometry teacher did so by noting how much more intensive the work would be than for any previous year and how extremely important passing the final state-mandated exam was. When I brought my algebra 1 teacher an algebra question, she noted that this specific question was something that was to be studied two years later in algebra 2, and she could not help, and when I pushed, she deferred to an unhelpful class textbook. When I showed a proof I developed of the area of a circle (pi*r^2) to my geometry teacher, she laughed and said "you did circles in the third grade".

 

These people are like kids who were trained to do well in high school, focus on mathematics classes because they're the most straight forward/mechanical at that level, memorize a pedagogy, and repeat it to new students, with no regard to the actual content; the cycle goes on and more such teachers/students are produced.

 

I would not trust these people's teaching. They are presenting real mathematical results, but the rote and plug and chug method of teaching is something that could be harmful if gotten used to, even hindering an interest in maths.

[ajb]

These people are like kids who were trained to do well in high school, focus on mathematics classes because they're the most straight forward/mechanical at that level, memorize a pedagogy, and repeat it to new students, with no regard to the actual content; the cycle goes on and more such teachers/students are produced.

This is a problem not just for mathematics.

 

But with specific regard to mathematics, all the teachers will have a degree in mathematics or some very close field and then went on to teacher training. I have only met one undergraduate who said he wanted to be a teacher in high school, that was in physics, and we both knew he would not make a good PhD student. I wonder how many actually enter undergraduate degrees with teaching at high school in mind?

 

I do not know the numbers, but how many of these teachers have only 3rd class degrees?

 

Those that are really bright, interested and hard working will not typically go into high school teaching. That said, there are always some Drs about in high schools, which I imagine fell into teaching rather than unemployment. Once there you get stuck.

 

I know that the Institute of Physics and the London Mathematical Society are offering money to more talented people to encourage them into teaching. This may help a little, and if there are fewer postdoc and research positions in the future your high school teacher maybe a disgruntled scientist who was let down by the system... a sure fire guarantee of a great teacher...

[Sato]

 

This is a problem not just for mathematics.

 

But with specific regard to mathematics, all the teachers will have a degree in mathematics or some very close field and then went on to teacher training. I have only met one undergraduate who said he wanted to be a teacher in high school, that was in physics, and we both knew he would not make a good PhD student. I wonder how many actually enter undergraduate degrees with teaching at high school in mind?

 

I do not know the numbers, but how many of these teachers have only 3rd class degrees?

 

Those that are really bright, interested and hard working will not typically go into high school teaching. That said, there are always some Drs about in high schools, which I imagine fell into teaching rather than unemployment. Once there you get stuck.

 

I know that the Institute of Physics and the London Mathematical Society are offering money to more talented people to encourage them into teaching. This may help a little, and if there are fewer postdoc and research positions in the future your high school teacher maybe a disgruntled scientist who was let down by the system... a sure fire guarantee of a great teacher...

 

From my experience, over many years in a typical American high school district, it is a problem mainly in mathematics.

 

I recall one of them noted that they were a cosmetologist, and then rushed through school to get a degree in accounting and education, and got the job. Another, my algebra teacher, actually had a masters degree, I think. It would not be surprising if the degree wasn't in mathematics, but education.

 

We don't have any PhD's, except for one who recently completed his part-time in our social studies department.

 

I don't know if that remark was sarcasm, but I think it's true. If he was really talented and passionate about mathematics, but was simply let down by the system, then he'd be inventive enough to figure out a way to pursue research/high-academia-like-thing, even on school hours. Like, say... start a mathematics research program for the students and pitch it to the board of education as a way to get the district money and recognition in competitions. Like my school's science department did.

[ajb]

I don't know if that remark was sarcasm, but I think it's true.

The few PhD's I know personally who went into teaching went sixth form colleges or private schools. I only know one who decided that was the way forward during his PhD. I myself am associated with a sixth form college, part time. I think that just teaching would kill me, and especially in a typical high school in the UK. I have respect for those that have done it, but for sure they have more b*lls than I do. Now I have no idea about US high schools, what we see on the news is not encouraging, but the news always reports, quite naturally, extreme events and not the norm.

[Sato]

The few PhD's I know personally who went into teaching went sixth form colleges or private schools. I only know one who decided that was the way forward during his PhD. I myself am associated with a sixth form college, part time. I think that just teaching would kill me, and especially in a typical high school in the UK. I have respect for those that have done it, but for sure they have more b*lls than I do. Now I have no idea about US high schools, what we see on the news is not encouraging, but the news always reports, quite naturally, extreme events and not the norm.

 

Ah, what do you do there then, if not teach? I thought you were affiliated with a research institution.

 

Teaching's not so bad, at least, I personally enjoy teaching whenever I find someone interested in topics I'm familiar with. Wouldn't you too, say, with a small group of undergrads who are interested in your area of algebraic geometry?

 

I agree though, if we're discussing such standardized/regulated teaching.

 

It's not always rape and school shootings, from what I've seen. Of course, there are some students who excel very well and are in the honors/gifted classes, usually going off to become doctors/lawyers, but for the most part they don't have much interest in the actual content. There are many more who don't care and spend much of their time partying and smoking marijuana. There are also some between the two ends of the spectrum. I imagine it's the same as in the UK.

[ajb]

Ah, what do you do there then, if not teach? I thought you were affiliated with a research institution.

I have more than one affiliation.

 

I don't do much direct teaching, rather online marking. I would be okay teaching these sixth formers, but I would not like it to be the only thing I did.

 

Teaching's not so bad, at least, I personally enjoy teaching whenever I find someone interested in topics I'm familiar with. Wouldn't you too, say, with a small group of undergrads who are interested in your area of algebraic geometry?

That would be more interesting than the teaching I am doing at the moment. However, although the subject I am currently teaching to undergrads is basic, they need it an the results will be used all the time in the applications they are interested in.

 

 

It's not always rape and school shootings, from what I've seen. Of course, there are some students who excel very well and are in the honors/gifted classes, usually going off to become doctors/lawyers, but for the most part they don't have much interest in the actual content. There are many more who don't care and spend much of their time partying and smoking marijuana. There are also some between the two ends of the spectrum. I imagine it's the same as in the UK.

It may vary on the actual location of the school to some degree, but yes I think it is the same.

[For Prose]

I am in the US, currently in secondary school, and many of the teachers seem to be interested in or care about what they teach, and do so to the extent that the curriculum (there is often a final exam that must be prepared for) or their class (eg, most English classes enjoy apathetic students, however interesting the book/topic at hand) will allow.

 

The one exception is mathematics. I have never come across a maths teacher who is interested in or cares about math. In fact, maths is the only class where at the beginning of the year, instead of presenting a motivation for the topic like is done in each other subject, they present information about the final exam that will be prepared for. Two years ago my geometry teacher introduced the class by angrily lamenting the difficulty of the class and how hard everyone will have to work to earn a good grade. Last year my algebra / trigonometry teacher did so by noting how much more intensive the work would be than for any previous year and how extremely important passing the final state-mandated exam was. When I brought my algebra 1 teacher an algebra question, she noted that this specific question was something that was to be studied two years later in algebra 2, and she could not help, and when I pushed, she deferred to an unhelpful class textbook. When I showed a proof I developed of the area of a circle (pi*r^2) to my geometry teacher, she laughed and said "you did circles in the third grade".

 

These people are like kids who were trained to do well in high school, focus on mathematics classes because they're the most straight forward/mechanical at that level, memorize a pedagogy, and repeat it to new students, with no regard to the actual content; the cycle goes on and more such teachers/students are produced.

 

I would not trust these people's teaching. They are presenting real mathematical results, but the rote and plug and chug method of teaching is something that could be harmful if gotten used to, even hindering an interest in maths.

 

Interesting Sato. My experience has been the exact opposite. Within biology, this same sort of thing tends to happen quite frequently, but all of my math professors will spend hours talking to me and would even try and works problems in fields that they knew nothing about.

 

This is in my experience. I don't want Phi to feel insulted.

[For Prose]

I have a quote i would like to share as I feel it is relevant to this thread.

 

" As you read the text, think like a researcher; consider the evidence that is presented, think of alternate explanations, plan experiments that could lead to new hypotheses.'

 

"Before closing these introductory comments, let me take the liberty of offering the reader some advice: Don't accept everything you read as being true. There are several reasons for urging such skepticism. Undoubtedly, there are errors in this text that reflect the author's ignorance or misrepresentation of some aspect of the scientific literature. But, more importantly, we should consider the nature of biological research. Biology is an empirical science; nothing is ever proved. We compile data concerning a particular cell organelle, metabolic reaction, intracellular movement, ect., and draw some type of conclusion. Some conclusions rest on more solid evidence that others. Even if there is a consensus of agreement concerning the "facts" regarding a particular phenomenon, there are often several possible interpretations of the data. Hypotheses are put forth and generally stimulate further research, thereby leading to a reevaluation of the original proposal. Most hypotheses that remain valid undergo a sort of evolution, and, when presented in the text, should not be considered wholly correct or incorrect."

 

(Found in Cell and Molecular Biology 7th Ed. by Gerald Karp. "To the Student". page x (not a typo))

 

My wish is that teachers would stress this at the beginning of their course and continue to stress this throughout periodically. If we want to train scientists and mathematicians, why not start treating us as such? I want to fed monotonous information required for later but I also want it to be done so with some type of reminder that it might not be correct.

 

(This is my opinion. It only applies to all the teachers I have ever had, not to teachers as a whole, as I have not been instructed by all teachers. There may be some out there that exist and would suite me perfectly.)

[swansont]

Interesting. My favorite teachers in both high school and college were math teachers, because of their style and enthusiasm.

 

I suspect one hurdle they have for motivation, especially for introductory classes, is the disparate applications. You teach algebra or calculus to a bunch of students, but you don't know what they are going to go on to study — physics, chemistry, biology, geology, engineering? If they haven't taken those classes yet they won't know the formulas involved, and maybe they haven't even decided yet what they want to study. And the teacher probably doesn't have a whole lot of time to set up problems to give the motivation, even if they did have sufficient cross-discipline background to know the applications.

[For Prose]

Interesting. My favorite teachers in both high school and college were math teachers, because of their style and enthusiasm.

 

I suspect one hurdle they have for motivation, especially for introductory classes, is the disparate applications. You teach algebra or calculus to a bunch of students, but you don't know what they are going to go on to study — physics, chemistry, biology, geology, engineering? If they haven't taken those classes yet they won't know the formulas involved, and maybe they haven't even decided yet what they want to study. And the teacher probably doesn't have a whole lot of time to set up problems to give the motivation, even if they did have sufficient cross-discipline background to know the applications.

I can understand that. But what of the enthusiasm outside of the classroom? I see where you are coming from with disparate applications. That certainly makes sense. I guess my personality may also have something to do with why I get so frustrated. I could never, no matter what the subject or introductory class, show little enthusiasm or motivation, even to apathetic students. They find it boring/dull? So what! I find it interesting and would inevitably let it show. I still find the basic things I learned 10 years ago fascinating.

[Timothydogy]

I really like to appear on www.scienceforums.net on an ongoing basis , a lot of messages in the topic . Thank you and ... continue

[Peace]

 

 

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.

I'm reminded of Dr. Feynman's experiences with editing textbooks, from his autobiography, "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman"

[halsienkiewicz1]

Lest we forget... In 1894 revered scientist Albert A. Michelson,^[1] reflected a general feeling in the scientific community at the time when he said, ‘the more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote . . . Our future discoveries must be looked for in the sixth place of decimals.’

 

Six years later Lord Kelvin,[2] widely known for determining the correct value of absolute zero as approximately -273.15 Celsius, the formulation of the first and second laws of thermodynamics and the first UK scientist to be elevated to the House of Lords, also represented a common view in the scientific establishment at the time when he said, ‘there is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.’

 

Not long after these statements were made, two revolutions in science occurred that turned classical 19^th Century science (the science the above two scientists were talking about) on its head: Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

[1] Albert Abraham Michelson was an American physicist known for his work on the measurement of the speed of light and especially for the Michelson–Morley experiment. In 1907 he received the Nobel Prize in Physics.

[2] William Thomson (Lord Kelvin), 1900

 

[ZVBXRPL]

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?

Critical thinking.

In the Catholic world prior to Galileo's conflict with the Church, the majority of educated people subscribed to the Aristotelian geocentric view that the earth was the centre of the Universe and that all heavenly bodies revolved around the Earth. Is the geocentric view science or religion?

Today, we have the Big Bang and Expanding Universe. Science or religion. In critical thinking, you always ask the question. Question everything. Georges Lemaitre was the first person to propose the Big Bang theory, he was a Catholic priest. Science or religion? The question was asked during the time of Galileo and so it needs to be asked now, especially with the knowledge that the theory came from the mind of a Catholic priest. Failure to ask the question is failure to use critical thinking. That in itself is a major failure.

Big Bang theory puts a finite age on the Universe. It gives the Universe a beginning. If you have the belief that you understand how the Universe began, how it all works, know all the secrets, then the Universe is no longer mysterious and mind boggling. God takes that mantle. If anyone questions this belief that you understand how the Universe began, how it all works etc you defend your faith. When defending faith logic and reason go out the window, as it is a faith you are defending.

The majority of people subscribe to the Big Bang theory. Is the Big Bang theory truth because the majority believe it to be truth?

Evidence. If one educated and qualified scientist says "this is evidence that this is truth" and another educated and qualified scientist says "this is not evidence that this is truth" how do you know which scientist is telling the truth?

You could go with the majority. In the case of the Big Bang theory, this would mean that you go with the majority and listen to the scientist who says "this is evidence that the Big Bang is truth".

Or, you could use critical thinking, think about it yourself and come to your own conclusion. By using critical thinking you can side with EITHER the scientist who says "this is evidence that this is truth" OR side with the scientist who says "this is not evidence that this is truth". You are not blindly following, you are thinking for yourself and making a choice.