6 ms·

> A professor of mine once said to me that all teaching was a process of lying, and then of replacing the lies with successively better approximations of the tr

by Boulth 8y ago

> A professor of mine once said to me that all teaching was a process of lying, and then of replacing the lies with successively better approximations of the truth. Well put! I'm in the process of explaining my 3yo daughter different molecules (there are some cheap kits on Aliexpress) and cells and life on a micro scale and this description of moving from simple but inaccurate models to more complex and accurate is something that I've also noticed in my explanations.

southern_cross 8y ago
I once read a critique of high school science textbooks which pointed out the great many "lies" that could be found even in the best of them - basically highly inaccurate or misleading descriptions and illustrations of basic scientific concepts. The thing is, though, that I recognized a great many of those same "lies" as being in my college science textbooks, too!
- rrauenza 8y ago
  Like tides? What Physics Teachers Get Wrong About Tides! | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwChk4S99i4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwChk4S99i4
  - pilom 8y ago
    Seriously? He gets this worked up explaining the difference between "the water is pulled out at the earth moon line" and "the water is pushed from the poles towards the earth moon line"? The net effect is identical.
    - geomark 8y ago
      If I understand his explanation correctly, the math says the effect can't be identical because the difference in gravitional force is much too small to lift the water that much. It has to be squeezed from the poles to raise the water high enough to account for tides.
  - southern_cross 8y ago
    Yeah, this is pretty much exactly the kind of thing I am talking about. Except that the guy in question was generally replacing "relatively simple explanation which is more wrong than right" with "relatively simple explanation which is more right that wrong". Meanwhile the guy in the video seems to be adding quite a bit of complexity, even though he says that he's actually presenting a simplified view of the matter. IIRC, one of the examples from the book thing had to do with the explanation and illustration of how light gets refracted when passing through glass. The overall effect is supposedly explained by the fact that light slows down as it enters glass, and typically a wavefront illustration is used to depict this. He went on to explain how the illustration is wrong and what the correct illustration should be instead, but I don't remember the details. And now that we have meta-materials which can bend light the wrong way, the whole "slowing down causes refraction" idea may be wrong, too. In fact, I remember reading an early potential explanation of this new effect (which as I recall had to do with the notion that the magnetic aspects of light might be affected differently than how the electrical aspects of light are, or vice versa) and thinking to myself "Aha - now that makes perfect sense!" And if that explanation makes sense for meta-materials then it also probably makes sense for regular materials. But once again I don't remember the details. BTW, I understand the need to often simplify things quite a bit when you're dealing with students, but if we have "simple but incorrect" vs. "simple but correct" then we should be working hard to eliminate the former as soon as possible. If his critique of the situation is valid then it kind of beggars belief that we are still teaching so many things the wrong way!
analog31 8y ago
All models are wrong, but some models are useful -- George Box
mncharity 8y ago
>> all teaching was a process of lying > Well put! Shudder. Consider a thought experiment - a military briefing. A captain briefing generals. One must necessarily simplify. But imagine a briefing that is grossly incomplete, assortedly incorrect, very misleading, written without understanding and without mentioning and characterizing that lack, and pervasively incompetently bogus, and that captain later on the carpet before the generals, defending the briefing with "well, all briefing is a process of lying". Shudder. I consider the "teaching is lying" meme to be vile. I've heard it most often associated with pre-college chemistry. Chemistry education research describes pre-college chemistry education content as "incoherent", leaving both students and teachers deeply steeped in misconceptions. Oh well. You mentioned microscale, so I write just to note the top "How to remember sizes" section of my slowwwly-loading wasn't-intended-to-be-public page http://www.clarifyscience.info/part/Atoms http://www.clarifyscience.info/part/Atoms . It might help you provide a framework for your kid to think about small things. FWIW.
- oska 8y ago
  > Shudder. I consider the "teaching is lying" meme to be vile. Couldn't agree more. And when I read this in the article I also thought of high school chemistry even before I read your comment. I was put off chemistry in high school precisely because of its incoherence. The best thing to do, as always, is to be honest. Tell your students that what you are teaching them is a simplification; a model that is useful at this level. Many will be satisfied with this answer and not want to go to a deeper level. But some children, those with a greater need for coherence and for things to make deep sense, will be reassured to know it's only a model and either wait for the deeper model to be taught or want to start exploring the deeper model at that time. Which is fine. I found the approach taken by the author of this article quite patronising and rather distasteful.
  - vilhelm_s 8y ago
    The approach in this article is to give a "technically unimpeachable" definition. It doesn't involve any lies.
    - 8y ago

by Boulth 8y ago

southern_cross 8y ago

I once read a critique of high school science textbooks which pointed out the great many "lies" that could be found even in the best of them - basically highly inaccurate or misleading descriptions and illustrations of basic scientific concepts. The thing is, though, that I recognized a great many of those same "lies" as being in my college science textbooks, too!

rrauenza 8y ago
Like tides? What Physics Teachers Get Wrong About Tides! | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwChk4S99i4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwChk4S99i4
- pilom 8y ago
  Seriously? He gets this worked up explaining the difference between "the water is pulled out at the earth moon line" and "the water is pushed from the poles towards the earth moon line"? The net effect is identical.
  - geomark 8y ago
    If I understand his explanation correctly, the math says the effect can't be identical because the difference in gravitional force is much too small to lift the water that much. It has to be squeezed from the poles to raise the water high enough to account for tides.
- southern_cross 8y ago
  Yeah, this is pretty much exactly the kind of thing I am talking about. Except that the guy in question was generally replacing "relatively simple explanation which is more wrong than right" with "relatively simple explanation which is more right that wrong". Meanwhile the guy in the video seems to be adding quite a bit of complexity, even though he says that he's actually presenting a simplified view of the matter. IIRC, one of the examples from the book thing had to do with the explanation and illustration of how light gets refracted when passing through glass. The overall effect is supposedly explained by the fact that light slows down as it enters glass, and typically a wavefront illustration is used to depict this. He went on to explain how the illustration is wrong and what the correct illustration should be instead, but I don't remember the details. And now that we have meta-materials which can bend light the wrong way, the whole "slowing down causes refraction" idea may be wrong, too. In fact, I remember reading an early potential explanation of this new effect (which as I recall had to do with the notion that the magnetic aspects of light might be affected differently than how the electrical aspects of light are, or vice versa) and thinking to myself "Aha - now that makes perfect sense!" And if that explanation makes sense for meta-materials then it also probably makes sense for regular materials. But once again I don't remember the details. BTW, I understand the need to often simplify things quite a bit when you're dealing with students, but if we have "simple but incorrect" vs. "simple but correct" then we should be working hard to eliminate the former as soon as possible. If his critique of the situation is valid then it kind of beggars belief that we are still teaching so many things the wrong way!

analog31 8y ago

All models are wrong, but some models are useful -- George Box

mncharity 8y ago

>> all teaching was a process of lying > Well put! Shudder. Consider a thought experiment - a military briefing. A captain briefing generals. One must necessarily simplify. But imagine a briefing that is grossly incomplete, assortedly incorrect, very misleading, written without understanding and without mentioning and characterizing that lack, and pervasively incompetently bogus, and that captain later on the carpet before the generals, defending the briefing with "well, all briefing is a process of lying". Shudder. I consider the "teaching is lying" meme to be vile. I've heard it most often associated with pre-college chemistry. Chemistry education research describes pre-college chemistry education content as "incoherent", leaving both students and teachers deeply steeped in misconceptions. Oh well. You mentioned microscale, so I write just to note the top "How to remember sizes" section of my slowwwly-loading wasn't-intended-to-be-public page http://www.clarifyscience.info/part/Atoms http://www.clarifyscience.info/part/Atoms . It might help you provide a framework for your kid to think about small things. FWIW.

oska 8y ago
> Shudder. I consider the "teaching is lying" meme to be vile. Couldn't agree more. And when I read this in the article I also thought of high school chemistry even before I read your comment. I was put off chemistry in high school precisely because of its incoherence. The best thing to do, as always, is to be honest. Tell your students that what you are teaching them is a simplification; a model that is useful at this level. Many will be satisfied with this answer and not want to go to a deeper level. But some children, those with a greater need for coherence and for things to make deep sense, will be reassured to know it's only a model and either wait for the deeper model to be taught or want to start exploring the deeper model at that time. Which is fine. I found the approach taken by the author of this article quite patronising and rather distasteful.
- vilhelm_s 8y ago
  The approach in this article is to give a "technically unimpeachable" definition. It doesn't involve any lies.
  - 8y ago