Let me begin by applauding the strength of conviction and seeming courage. I am especially impressed with willingness to take on Regents Physics curriculum (considering the profession of the person grading you…) This would have qualified as a rather bold and courageous act if not for one small hiccup – as of now I do not know the identity of mysterious Balzac… Thus, my interest was piqued. So, let’s grab a microscope and a dissecting kit and closely examine the above-mentioned argument.
Thesis: what superficially appears to be a reasonable argument upon closer examinations is nothing more than an exercise in sophistry. “Why?” – You ask. Read on…
I don't see much functional use to teaching kids pseudo-science that doesn't fully take into account any factors that would be prevalent outside of the classroom.
Bravo, egregio Signore (or is it "cher monsieur"?)! Well said -- big words and all... But is this statement true? Let’s start with the term pseudo-science. Oxford English Dictionary defines prefix “pseudo-” as (this is a direct quote)
Pseudo -- false, counterfeit, pretended, spurious
(1) Prefix to any noun as adjective forming combinations, …, with the sense ‘false, pretended, counterfeit, spurious, sham, falsely so called or represented; falsely, spuriously, apparently but not in reality’
(2) Special combinations: nearly all terms of modern science, (a) indicating close or deceptive resemblance to the thing denoted by the second element, without real identity or affinity with it; or sometimes simply denoting an abnormal or erratic from or kind of thing; (b) denoting something which does not correspond with the reality, or to which no reality corresponds, as false perceptions, errors of judgment or statement.
So, let’s assume the author used the term “pseudo-science” in the (2) sense of the word… I would further postulate that the intended definition was not described by the (2a) statement. Thus, let’s infer (and the remainder of the sentence appears to support this assumption) that the term was used in (2b) context.
I wonder where our writer goes upon leaving the Physics classroom since it is clearly different from the outside of the classroom I experience daily. When I step outside of my classroom things continue to fall due to gravity as predicted by the laws I teach. Granted: Paper, feathers and other light and small items fall considerably slower than our classroom calculations would predict, but these inconsistencies are addressed by conceptual explanations and examples. Does the author claim that all knowledge learned in the absence of mathematical equation supporting it is pseudo-science?
When I step outside of my classroom unbalanced forces still produce accelerated motion and balanced forces produce motion at constant velocity. No exceptions here… When I step outside of my classroom gravity still acts, planets still rotate, charges still attract and repel according to the physical laws.
Thus, I require an explanation: which part of what I teach can be classified as
“pseudo”? Perhaps the author refers to the teaching style..?More to follow as soon as I catch my breath…
2 comments:
I think the author was referring to how we don't take EVERYTHING into account when we do our physics.
In short, the very start of the year we did falling objects, but ignoring the friction caused by air-resistance. As we continue to do physics, we will be doing simplified versions that don't take into account things we are not fully capable of calculating... I believe you once said yourself that Regents physics was not -true- Physics, and that the -real- material was left for AP.
Surely, even AP leaves out stuff that won't be dealt with until you are in college or graduate school.
At least that's what I feel Balzac means... perhaps he should create a follow up post.
My point was "incomplete information" does not pseudo-science make... I was objecting to the word, not content (I happen to agree with the content)
Post a Comment