4 ms·

Poor understanding of physics are exemplified everywhere these days. It's tiring seeing so many armchair experts trying to take over the discourse with their in

by 693471 7y ago

Poor understanding of physics are exemplified everywhere these days. It's tiring seeing so many armchair experts trying to take over the discourse with their incessant posturing.

paulcole 7y ago
I'm not sure that's a fair characterization of Elon Musk.
- nolok 7y ago
  Honestly talking about him and his companies is very controversial on HN between the for and against, but I would disagree with you; on almost every PR and marketing pieces and talks he tends to take insane shortcuts.
  - paulcole 7y ago
    > he tends to take insane shortcuts Here on HN we say that is a feature not a bug lol.
nolok 7y ago
Isn't convection against conduction high school level physics though ? I know it was here in France a decade and a half ego when I was there ...
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  Yes, but that assumes most people try to retain that knowledge longer than it takes to pass the final.
  - nolok 7y ago
    Well the details sure, but the general concept ? I have no idea of the basic reproduction number / R0 of any common virus, but I remember the idea of it. Although now that I think of it it's probably a terrible exemple since if people remembered that concept they wouldn't question herd immunity of vaccines. I guess I'm just a bit weirded out.
    - aidenn0 7y ago
      Here's a snippet from a Feynmen talk[1]. He was discussing Latin America, but I think this passage applies equally well to secondary education in the US today: > First, and most serious, I believe, is the almost exclusive teaching and learning by means of pure abject memory. This in no way teaches physics as a science. Nothing is understood; it is only remembered. This in no way satisfies the reasons I outlined for teaching science. Memorization of laws does not permit one to make applications of these laws to new situations; it does not permit one the pleasure of ultimately making scientific contributions; it cannot teach any techniques with the hands. From memorizing, knowledge is not understood, and the beauty of nature is not appreciated. It does not tell how things were found out, or reveal the value of an inventive free mind. > For example, the telescope is an interesting device to make, understand, look through, and play with. It turned men's ideas and minds in new directions. It gave a great impetus to the modern revolution of thought. For a long while it was the sole revealer of the vastness of the heavens and man's modest place in it. But, in Latin America one learns that there are four kinds of telescopes: the Newtonian, the Cassigranian, etc., etc. In the first, the image is virtual and inverted, etc. (I put in all this "etc." because I really don't know how many kinds of telescopes there are, or what their names are, or which way the image is in each kind. But don't underestimate me; I know a very great deal about telescopes – how they work, how to make and use one, their powers and limitations, etc.) The result is that the telescope is lost. There is no more telescope, no lenses, no stars, no eyes, no light – just words memorized without requiring understanding. The examination is passed, for the question was "What are the four types of telescopes?" > I must say immediately that I am not against memorizing. Some things, even many (though nothing special) may be learned by heart; for example, it is good, but not essential, to know by heart 7 x 8 = 56. What I oppose in any teaching philosophy is that the philosophy is used exclusively; but in this case it is especially serious because so little is left of the subject. > ... > When asked what Brewster's Law is, advanced students answer in a flash: "Light impinging on a material of index n is 100 percent polarized with the electric field perpendicular to the plane of incidence if the tangent of the angle of incidence equals the index of refraction." > To these same students I then say, "Look out at the bay from which the sunlight is being reflected. If I look at that reflection through this piece of polaroid and turn it, what will happen?" All I receive are blank stares. No one knows. But I get cries of surprise and delight when they try it and see the reflections getting brighter and dimmer. > This shows something is completely wrong. There is no knowledge whatsoever of nature. With the wrong entrance clue the memorization is useless. These students are like books, no more. I can look in the index of a book under "Brewster's Law" and find a reference equivalent to the students' reply. But in the index I cannot find "sun reflecting on bay." > What do the students know that is not easily and directly available in a book? The things that can be looked up in a book are only a part of knowledge. Who wants such a student to work in a plant when a book requiring no food or maintenance stands day after day always ready to give just as adequate answers? Who wants to be such a student, to have worked so hard, to have missed so much of interest and pleasure, and to be outdone by an inanimate printed list of "laws"? 1: http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/46/2/LatinAmerica.htm http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/46/2/LatinAmerica.htm
DannyB2 7y ago
> Poor understanding of physics are exemplified everywhere these days. Please allow me to quote former vice president Dan Quayle... https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dan_Quayle https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dan_Quayle Mars is essentially in the same orbit. … Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe.
- not_a_cop75 7y ago
  Oxygen can be harvested from the water, so in that sense he's not wrong. It seems like everyone wants to make every politician into an idiot.
  - antonvs 7y ago
    The Mariner 4 probe showed that there were no canals on Mars, and no open water, by 1965. Quayle's knowledge on the subject was over two decades out of date at the time, and he was supposed to be in charge of the space initiative. Quayle was not a smart man, even by the standards of politicians.

by 693471 7y ago

Poor understanding of physics are exemplified everywhere these days. It's tiring seeing so many armchair experts trying to take over the discourse with their incessant posturing.

paulcole 7y ago

I'm not sure that's a fair characterization of Elon Musk.

nolok 7y ago
Honestly talking about him and his companies is very controversial on HN between the for and against, but I would disagree with you; on almost every PR and marketing pieces and talks he tends to take insane shortcuts.
- paulcole 7y ago
  > he tends to take insane shortcuts Here on HN we say that is a feature not a bug lol.

nolok 7y ago

Isn't convection against conduction high school level physics though ? I know it was here in France a decade and a half ego when I was there ...

vonmoltke 7y ago
Yes, but that assumes most people try to retain that knowledge longer than it takes to pass the final.
- nolok 7y ago
  Well the details sure, but the general concept ? I have no idea of the basic reproduction number / R0 of any common virus, but I remember the idea of it. Although now that I think of it it's probably a terrible exemple since if people remembered that concept they wouldn't question herd immunity of vaccines. I guess I'm just a bit weirded out.
  - aidenn0 7y ago
    Here's a snippet from a Feynmen talk[1]. He was discussing Latin America, but I think this passage applies equally well to secondary education in the US today: > First, and most serious, I believe, is the almost exclusive teaching and learning by means of pure abject memory. This in no way teaches physics as a science. Nothing is understood; it is only remembered. This in no way satisfies the reasons I outlined for teaching science. Memorization of laws does not permit one to make applications of these laws to new situations; it does not permit one the pleasure of ultimately making scientific contributions; it cannot teach any techniques with the hands. From memorizing, knowledge is not understood, and the beauty of nature is not appreciated. It does not tell how things were found out, or reveal the value of an inventive free mind. > For example, the telescope is an interesting device to make, understand, look through, and play with. It turned men's ideas and minds in new directions. It gave a great impetus to the modern revolution of thought. For a long while it was the sole revealer of the vastness of the heavens and man's modest place in it. But, in Latin America one learns that there are four kinds of telescopes: the Newtonian, the Cassigranian, etc., etc. In the first, the image is virtual and inverted, etc. (I put in all this "etc." because I really don't know how many kinds of telescopes there are, or what their names are, or which way the image is in each kind. But don't underestimate me; I know a very great deal about telescopes – how they work, how to make and use one, their powers and limitations, etc.) The result is that the telescope is lost. There is no more telescope, no lenses, no stars, no eyes, no light – just words memorized without requiring understanding. The examination is passed, for the question was "What are the four types of telescopes?" > I must say immediately that I am not against memorizing. Some things, even many (though nothing special) may be learned by heart; for example, it is good, but not essential, to know by heart 7 x 8 = 56. What I oppose in any teaching philosophy is that the philosophy is used exclusively; but in this case it is especially serious because so little is left of the subject. > ... > When asked what Brewster's Law is, advanced students answer in a flash: "Light impinging on a material of index n is 100 percent polarized with the electric field perpendicular to the plane of incidence if the tangent of the angle of incidence equals the index of refraction." > To these same students I then say, "Look out at the bay from which the sunlight is being reflected. If I look at that reflection through this piece of polaroid and turn it, what will happen?" All I receive are blank stares. No one knows. But I get cries of surprise and delight when they try it and see the reflections getting brighter and dimmer. > This shows something is completely wrong. There is no knowledge whatsoever of nature. With the wrong entrance clue the memorization is useless. These students are like books, no more. I can look in the index of a book under "Brewster's Law" and find a reference equivalent to the students' reply. But in the index I cannot find "sun reflecting on bay." > What do the students know that is not easily and directly available in a book? The things that can be looked up in a book are only a part of knowledge. Who wants such a student to work in a plant when a book requiring no food or maintenance stands day after day always ready to give just as adequate answers? Who wants to be such a student, to have worked so hard, to have missed so much of interest and pleasure, and to be outdone by an inanimate printed list of "laws"? 1: http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/46/2/LatinAmerica.htm http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/46/2/LatinAmerica.htm

DannyB2 7y ago

> Poor understanding of physics are exemplified everywhere these days. Please allow me to quote former vice president Dan Quayle... https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dan_Quayle https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dan_Quayle Mars is essentially in the same orbit. … Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe.

not_a_cop75 7y ago
Oxygen can be harvested from the water, so in that sense he's not wrong. It seems like everyone wants to make every politician into an idiot.
- antonvs 7y ago
  The Mariner 4 probe showed that there were no canals on Mars, and no open water, by 1965. Quayle's knowledge on the subject was over two decades out of date at the time, and he was supposed to be in charge of the space initiative. Quayle was not a smart man, even by the standards of politicians.