3 ms·

How we derived the laws and theories is science. (Some of the other commenters are mixing this together with biographies of the scientists, which is not science

How we derived the laws and theories is science. (Some of the other commenters are mixing this together with biographies of the scientists, which is not science but is sometimes interesting in its own right.) The laws and theories in isolation are just trivia, and any class that teaches just those cannot truthfully be called a science class. Demand a better education.

tsimionescu 2y ago
Both have their value, both the process and the results. And given the immensity of scientific knowledge, you can only learn so much of it in a K-12 education, or even in college. I don't think it's a priori wrong to teach students our current understanding of the world, without going into the details of how we came up with it. I also don't think it's wrong to add those details, but the more details you add, the less of the full picture you'll be able to present. And I definitely don't think it would be a good idea to teach children how we do science, without teaching them what we actually learned from doing it. I'd also say that the reality of some of the process is extraordinarily boring ("we kept meticulous records of precisely where on the sky various stars were each night, and how their position changed, for a few hundred years, and tried finding a function that matched those numbers; for a few hundred years, we kept adding more and more circles to correct things, until Kepler came up with some ellipses"). And that for many children, learning history is already a huge bore, learning the history of science in addition would make science classes much worse. For others, the opposite is true.
- lern_too_spel 2y ago
  The results are useful in engineering, but the fact that the results are useful does not mean that a class that teaches just the results is a science class. You don't have to include the boring bits of who paid for the research or the day to day lives of the researchers. That isn't science, and it doesn't help the student understand science. A mere description of the fact that Tycho Brahe kept meticulous records of the positions of the planets in the sky and a walkthrough of the math that shows this data matches elliptical orbits and the math that shows that Newton's laws lead to those elliptical orbits is sufficient. The fact that there is a discrepancy for Mercury motivates further developments.
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    The results are what science exists for, ultimately. If you're not going to go do science, you still benefit from understanding what the world is - not just for engineering, but as a basic human need for understanding the world you live in.
    - lern_too_spel 2y ago
      Being told what is correct doesn't work. That's how you get https://www.newsweek.com/alabama-biology-textbooks-evolution-sticker-373662 https://www.newsweek.com/alabama-biology-textbooks-evolution.... Calling something science that isn't science is a serious problem.
lupusreal 2y ago
Most of the general public would be better served with more emphasis on the history of science. Knowing how and when it happened makes it seem less like magic dogma given to them from the elders, against which rebellion is appealing.

tsimionescu 2y ago

Both have their value, both the process and the results. And given the immensity of scientific knowledge, you can only learn so much of it in a K-12 education, or even in college. I don't think it's a priori wrong to teach students our current understanding of the world, without going into the details of how we came up with it. I also don't think it's wrong to add those details, but the more details you add, the less of the full picture you'll be able to present. And I definitely don't think it would be a good idea to teach children how we do science, without teaching them what we actually learned from doing it. I'd also say that the reality of some of the process is extraordinarily boring ("we kept meticulous records of precisely where on the sky various stars were each night, and how their position changed, for a few hundred years, and tried finding a function that matched those numbers; for a few hundred years, we kept adding more and more circles to correct things, until Kepler came up with some ellipses"). And that for many children, learning history is already a huge bore, learning the history of science in addition would make science classes much worse. For others, the opposite is true.

lern_too_spel 2y ago
The results are useful in engineering, but the fact that the results are useful does not mean that a class that teaches just the results is a science class. You don't have to include the boring bits of who paid for the research or the day to day lives of the researchers. That isn't science, and it doesn't help the student understand science. A mere description of the fact that Tycho Brahe kept meticulous records of the positions of the planets in the sky and a walkthrough of the math that shows this data matches elliptical orbits and the math that shows that Newton's laws lead to those elliptical orbits is sufficient. The fact that there is a discrepancy for Mercury motivates further developments.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  The results are what science exists for, ultimately. If you're not going to go do science, you still benefit from understanding what the world is - not just for engineering, but as a basic human need for understanding the world you live in.
  - lern_too_spel 2y ago
    Being told what is correct doesn't work. That's how you get https://www.newsweek.com/alabama-biology-textbooks-evolution-sticker-373662 https://www.newsweek.com/alabama-biology-textbooks-evolution.... Calling something science that isn't science is a serious problem.

lupusreal 2y ago

Most of the general public would be better served with more emphasis on the history of science. Knowing how and when it happened makes it seem less like magic dogma given to them from the elders, against which rebellion is appealing.