Archived
E-mail Discussion List
|
|
Return to E-mail Discussion page Previous in threadNext in thread Hi Everybody, & Hi Amanda in particular, I had some quick thoughts and questions about what Amanda said.> I think it's also important that people understand how to > interpret the results of legitimate scientific research. I think a key problem is that the media tends to overstate scientific results. Especially with medical science, all results somehow appear conclusive or revolutionary.> At the same time, they discover that science isn't as remote, > abstract, and intimidating as they may have previously believed. I worry that much of science, as it is currently taught, is indeed remote and abstract. In high school I had to memorize all the bones and muscles in the body, as well as all the elements in the periodic table -- it struck me as rather unimportant. Further, think about how much of a basic physics course is abstract. You spend lots of time learning technical definitions of things such as "force" and "energy", and memorizing equations, in order to analyze simple, artificial situations. So: should we rethink how these courses are taught? Or am I mistaken?> Finally, science can change the way we perceive the world. Seems like we ought to have multidisciplinary courses in science and philosophy. Or should this be a more integral part of science courses? Or are you suggesting that science courses, even as they are, can change the way non-scientists perceive the world? --Eric |
