12 ms·

Apollo Astronauts Didn't Need Heavy Boots

83 points by frisco 18y ago

Silentio 18y ago
>Two students asked if I was going to continue asking them about things they had never studied in the class. I'm in grad school and people still ask this question after tests. Many of my peers expect only to be asked questions that have already been asked during the course of instruction, or at least ones that resemble them very closely. I think this is pretty good evidence that people are only in school for the degree and not for the skills and practice of thinking/wondering/exploring on their own. This might have something to do with our generally rather antiquated public educational system that basically beats "wondering" out of students heads in favor of industrial education.* *This is not true of all teachers or all schools systems, but it applies to much of my experience.
- asdlfj2sd 18y ago
 I love problems you can solve by thinking. But I've often had simple facts, which were not covered anywhere, on tests. These are dry, unrelated, having nothing to do with puzzling out facts. Facts, which were not in any reading material and were never mentioned in class, and no recommendation for independent study was made. This is not about learning or teaching or thinking. It's about sucking at teaching and testing. And testing stuff you meant to go over but never actually did.
- dagobart 18y ago
 Sorry that I intercept, but that there are "people [who] still ask this question" is an indicator only for that there are people "only in school for the degree" but not for that people in general are "only in school for the degree". Then if so, what about yourself?
 - Silentio 18y ago
 Not a bad question. I am absolutely in grad school for the degree. It is not, however, my first reason for being in grad school or even one of my primary reasons. Much of what I am learning I could learn on my own by studying the books and thinkers my peers and I have studied in the classroom setting this semester; I know this to be true. The draw of graduate work (and any post secondary education as far as I'm concerned) is the opportunity to think alongside professors with a wealth of accumulated knowledge and wisdom in their particular field, and to think and discuss with classmates who share a similar passion to one's own. Learning completely on your own doesn't come close to the experience of learning from and with people who share one's passion for a particular subject. So it's pretty disappointing when a rather large chunk of those peers don't seem to care one way or the other about real learning and application of knowledge, but only seem to care about the grade.
diN0bot 18y ago
http://www.bautforum.com/astronomy/2265-pen-moon-question-revisited.html http://www.bautforum.com/astronomy/2265-pen-moon-question-re...
riffic 18y ago
I am scared for the future of humanity.
- andylei 18y ago
  why? most people can probably get through life just fine not knowing how gravity works at non-earth locations.
  - rincewind 18y ago
    That is exactly the point of the story. Gravity works the same way everywhere in this universe (this includes non-earth locations). But instead of applying common sense, the TA made up a fact about the Moon. Maybe there is some kind of cognitive bias in the heads of some that makes them think Earth is different from the rest of the universe because we happen to live here. But that the TA did not apply Occams Razor to this problem seems weird; since he knew Descartes' philosophy, he should not have held this aristotelian world view. snarkier: Why not? Most people can probably get through life just fine telling other people nonsense about how gravity works at non-earth locations.
    - electromagnetic 18y ago
      Gravity works exactly the same throughout the entire universe, however from our pathetically small perspective on the matter the differences are quite literally astronomical. On a different planet, you'll be able to jump 100 feet into the air, fall the equivalent of about 1,000 feet and not get hurt. Most people can't grasp why, simply because their brains don't compute the monumental scale of things.
      - silentOpen 18y ago
        Gravity probably works exactly the same throughout the entire universe.
        electromagnetic 18y ago
smanek 18y ago
It's particularly amazing how high functioning people who lack basic logical reasoning skills can be. I have to admit: sometimes it takes me weeks (or even months) to realize that someone I know is a complete idiot. The problem is that day-to-day interaction is so scripted that there is no opportunity for them to reveal how stupid they really are. But as soon as you deviate from the script and try to work together on a real problem or argue about something it becomes embarrassingly evident. I've starting trying to provoke little academic arguments with new people just as a quick intelligence test (this seems marginally more socially acceptable than trying to unearth some other proxies for intelligence).
- hugothefrog 18y ago
  Hah, I think I might have met you before ;) In all seriousness, can you give me an example of the sorts of arguments you start? In a more idealistic phase of my life, I used to start political arguments at the drop of a hat. Not to verify someone's political leanings were like mine, but to instead verify that they had thought about (the) issue(s), and developed any opinion at all. Now I just sigh when people say they don't take an interest in some topic I think is generally applicable to their lives.
  - knightinblue 18y ago
    in some topic I think is generally applicable to their lives. No offense, but you have absolutely no business deciding what's applicable to someone else's life. Just because it's interesting to you doesn't mean it has to be for others. And if it isn't, it's still perfectly acceptable. I sigh when people judge others for not caring about things that they themselves care about.
    - hugothefrog 18y ago
      Fair point, and perhaps poorly worded on my behalf. You may disagree with me, but I think there is some political, social-economical, geo-political or even local-government topics that effect everyone. Or rather, there is at least one topic that effects every single person, whether they think it or not. That was more what I was getting at.
m104 18y ago
To those who may think that a lack of scientific understanding by the general population is not of significant concern, I know of no better quotation than the following: "We've arranged a civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces." - Carl Sagan, interview with Anne Kalosh, 1995
- riffic 18y ago
  dark ages II: dark harder!
  - MaysonL 18y ago
    Indeed: I just read Dark Age Ahead by Jane Jacobs, and it's depressing. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Age-Ahead-Jane-Jacobs/dp/1400062322 http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Age-Ahead-Jane-Jacobs/dp/14000623...
- kiba 18y ago
  It is inefficent for everybody to learn to about science. It is better to let them specialize in whatever they're good at. This allow advanced division of labor so that we can have a really sophisticated civilization. It's a tradeoff.
  - nebula 18y ago
    It is inefficient for everybody to learn to about science. I agree it's inefficient for everybody to learn advanced science; but basic science? Gravity for Newton's sake? Don't people spend around 10 years going through basic education? What are they learning in those 10 years if they can't even understand a tiny bit of how the world that we live in functions? Also, if you have read the article it's not just a failure to understand gravity, there was a severe lack of ability to apply logic (even by the TA that was teaching logic!). Well that says something about the education system. I would argue that everyone should learn at least the basics of science, and appreciate the fact that this marvelous civilization that we are living in is shaped by the very science that they don't fully comprehend.
RiderOfGiraffes 18y ago
Some time ago (and I really ought to spend some time trying to track down the original source) there was a questionaire in the UK. One question was "Does the Earth go around the Sun, or the Sun go around the Earth?" The followup question was "How long does it take?" Of those who got the first one right (remember that, they got it right) nearly 80% gave an answer on the followup that amount to "about a day." I have a mental model of how this can happen. For ordinary people on the street, the Sun goes around the Earth and it takes about a day. That's what they see, that's what they experience, and to them, that's what matter. Moreover, using the Earth as your frame of reference, they're right. However, it's been drilled into them as an unattached, unassociated, irrelevant-to-them "fact" that the Earth goes around the Sun. When presented with the first question, then, they parrot that answer, with no idea of what that actually means. This doesn't, therefore, mean they're stupid. It just means that they have a mental model of the world that works perfectly well for them, and they've been confused by "facts" that have no use. I'm not arguing it's good, or right, but at least it helps me understand how otherwise perfectly functional people can appear so stupid and irrational.
- jhayes 18y ago
  Again with the visualizing of a pre-newtonian world, a few years ago a physics TA (now a lecturer) made some observations on his Q&A sessions with some 1st years in Cambridge- they didn't hold up too well either but then again, changing your mental model of how the world works is no easy task I guess. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512158 http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512158 "1.4 Heavier objects fall faster The classic Aristotelian belief is that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. Surely three hundred years after Galileo showed otherwise, students no longer share this belief? Unfortunately, many do, but the belief shows up only in novel situations. Students know that if a stone and a cannonball fall, they should say that both objects hit the ground ‘at the same time’; if they have been carefully taught, they might even say ‘roughly at the same time’. They also know what to say about two objects sliding down an incline, that mass is irrelevant. However, when the problem includes the novel eﬀect of rolling (yet more trouble with circular motion!), many students have no practiced Newtonian answer to quote, and reveal their gut-level Aristotelian belief. For example, in Problem 23, about objects rolling down a plane, some students reasoned that an object with a large moment of inertia, such as a disc, rolls faster than an object with a small moment of inertia, such as a solid sphere. Two students argued that ‘moment of inertia is analogous to mass, and heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects’! I could not agree with the analogy, but I admired its boldness. The way that rehearsal hides this misconception reminds me of the theory of the English accent: that if you step on an Englishman’s toes in the middle of the night, he’ll shout at you in an American accent. On this view, the one true accent is American. An English accent is just an act, a mask dropped upon surprise. Similarly, the students’ response that ‘all objects fall at the same speed’ is carefully rehearsed. It falls away when we step on their toes by asking about it in a novel context, whereupon they reveal their true belief, that heavier objects fall faster.""
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
jgrahamc 18y ago
Given that the escape velocity on the Moon's surface is about 2.4 kps I can't see any astronaut having the strength (even if totally unencumbered) to jump up at that speed
- Allocator2008 18y ago
  I would not put it past Dennis Rodman, lol.
- TweedHeads 18y ago
  Or a lunar module for that matter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apollo16LM.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apollo16LM.jpg
  - Zaak 18y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Escape_Systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Escape_Systems
Allocator2008 18y ago
This is a great story. I first recall when I first knew I was being misled by a teacher. I was in 9th grade earth science, and she had shown a documentary on the early history of the universe which had made reference to string theory. String theory posits perhaps 11 dimensions in some versions from what I gather. The teacher thought this was ridiculous and said something to the class to the effect of, well I can't even imagine having a fourth dimension, can you? Student Parrots: No! Teacher: Well then, of course string theory can't be right! Now I was 14, and it would still be a few years before I first would read 'A Brief History of Time' and so I knew nothing of string theory, but, I somehow knew, on some basic instinctual level that I was being misled in that moment, that just because the teacher could not "imagine" higher dimensions did not in and of itself mean that there could not possibly be higher dimensions in theory. Looking back, that was the start of a distrust in me with regards to the academic "establishment" which has continued in varying degrees to this very day. It is one of those epistemological moments of clarity: once one realizes it is possible to be misled by a teacher, which one naturally is conditioned to trust, then really who else could possibly mislead one? What sources can after all be trusted? Once one realizes the inherent fallibility of everyone, including one's teachers, then things just are not quite the same ever again, there is a certain loss of innocence there which can never be gotten back.
- duncanj 18y ago
  Indeed, I remember Hawking said in the book he had difficulty with visualizing the several dimensions he was working with.
oomkiller 18y ago
How could anyone in a college physics class miss this one? They really should have failed the class if they did, because they can't even grasp basic Newtonian physics.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
  - billswift 18y ago
    I think he was refering to the paragraph further down that started: "I decided to settle this question once and for all. Therefore, I put two multiple choice questions on my Physics 111 test, after the study of elementary mechanics and gravity."
    - deleted 18y ago
      [deleted]
dilanj 18y ago
Um .. heavy boots will help to be more rooted to the ground (because of the additional momentum necessary to move them) and thus will help achieve a more natural walking experience, right? Am I missing something?
- juanpablo 18y ago
  You are right. I also think the Apollo astronauts probably did use heavy boots for that reason. But you're missing the point of the article.
nazgulnarsil 18y ago
Is everyone under the mistaken impression that a human is primarily a reasoning animal? Much of what appears to be "reason" is pattern recognition with no significant cognition backing it up. Don't think you're immune either. We all do a lot of things that if questioned closely is based on presuppositions that aren't ultimately as justifiable as we think.
- parenthesis 18y ago
  "Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason." – Oscar Wilde "It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this." – Bertrand Russell
- HeyLaughingBoy 18y ago
  Smartest thing I've read in this thread so far :-)
nazgulnarsil 18y ago
the thing not being taught in school isn't any basic fact, but critical thinking skills. I firmly believe from all my time as a tutor that there is a window in childhood during which children need certain stimulation to pick up these skills, and much like language if this window is missed it becomes much harder to train them later in life.
ableal 18y ago
An internet oldie. Here's another one: "Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig." -- Robert Heinlein Much 'education', classroom and otherwise, falls into this category. Not to mention that much of it is done by people who can't sing, anyway, or are teaching atonal "music". And the consequences are not tragic, either. Does anyone have scientific proof of the contrary ? (No, I'm not a drop-out - that's why I know ;-) P.S. nazgulnarsil nailed it (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=580529 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=580529 ). Neatly put, sir.
jcl 18y ago
For what it's worth, this story is absolutely ancient and possibly fictional. I think I originally read it in a humor collection on Gopher. We don't know who wrote it (it's not the guy hosting the page), so it should be taken with a grain of salt.

83 points by frisco 18y ago

>Two students asked if I was going to continue asking them about things they had never studied in the class. I'm in grad school and people still ask this question after tests. Many of my peers expect only to be asked questions that have already been asked during the course of instruction, or at least ones that resemble them very closely. I think this is pretty good evidence that people are only in school for the degree and not for the skills and practice of thinking/wondering/exploring on their own. This might have something to do with our generally rather antiquated public educational system that basically beats "wondering" out of students heads in favor of industrial education.* *This is not true of all teachers or all schools systems, but it applies to much of my experience.

asdlfj2sd 18y ago
I love problems you can solve by thinking. But I've often had simple facts, which were not covered anywhere, on tests. These are dry, unrelated, having nothing to do with puzzling out facts. Facts, which were not in any reading material and were never mentioned in class, and no recommendation for independent study was made. This is not about learning or teaching or thinking. It's about sucking at teaching and testing. And testing stuff you meant to go over but never actually did.
dagobart 18y ago
Sorry that I intercept, but that there are "people [who] still ask this question" is an indicator only for that there are people "only in school for the degree" but not for that people in general are "only in school for the degree". Then if so, what about yourself?
- Silentio 18y ago
 Not a bad question. I am absolutely in grad school for the degree. It is not, however, my first reason for being in grad school or even one of my primary reasons. Much of what I am learning I could learn on my own by studying the books and thinkers my peers and I have studied in the classroom setting this semester; I know this to be true. The draw of graduate work (and any post secondary education as far as I'm concerned) is the opportunity to think alongside professors with a wealth of accumulated knowledge and wisdom in their particular field, and to think and discuss with classmates who share a similar passion to one's own. Learning completely on your own doesn't come close to the experience of learning from and with people who share one's passion for a particular subject. So it's pretty disappointing when a rather large chunk of those peers don't seem to care one way or the other about real learning and application of knowledge, but only seem to care about the grade.

diN0bot 18y ago

http://www.bautforum.com/astronomy/2265-pen-moon-question-revisited.html http://www.bautforum.com/astronomy/2265-pen-moon-question-re...

riffic 18y ago

I am scared for the future of humanity.

andylei 18y ago
why? most people can probably get through life just fine not knowing how gravity works at non-earth locations.
- rincewind 18y ago
  That is exactly the point of the story. Gravity works the same way everywhere in this universe (this includes non-earth locations). But instead of applying common sense, the TA made up a fact about the Moon. Maybe there is some kind of cognitive bias in the heads of some that makes them think Earth is different from the rest of the universe because we happen to live here. But that the TA did not apply Occams Razor to this problem seems weird; since he knew Descartes' philosophy, he should not have held this aristotelian world view. snarkier: Why not? Most people can probably get through life just fine telling other people nonsense about how gravity works at non-earth locations.
  - electromagnetic 18y ago
    Gravity works exactly the same throughout the entire universe, however from our pathetically small perspective on the matter the differences are quite literally astronomical. On a different planet, you'll be able to jump 100 feet into the air, fall the equivalent of about 1,000 feet and not get hurt. Most people can't grasp why, simply because their brains don't compute the monumental scale of things.
    - silentOpen 18y ago
      Gravity probably works exactly the same throughout the entire universe.
      - electromagnetic 18y ago

smanek 18y ago

It's particularly amazing how high functioning people who lack basic logical reasoning skills can be. I have to admit: sometimes it takes me weeks (or even months) to realize that someone I know is a complete idiot. The problem is that day-to-day interaction is so scripted that there is no opportunity for them to reveal how stupid they really are. But as soon as you deviate from the script and try to work together on a real problem or argue about something it becomes embarrassingly evident. I've starting trying to provoke little academic arguments with new people just as a quick intelligence test (this seems marginally more socially acceptable than trying to unearth some other proxies for intelligence).

hugothefrog 18y ago
Hah, I think I might have met you before ;) In all seriousness, can you give me an example of the sorts of arguments you start? In a more idealistic phase of my life, I used to start political arguments at the drop of a hat. Not to verify someone's political leanings were like mine, but to instead verify that they had thought about (the) issue(s), and developed any opinion at all. Now I just sigh when people say they don't take an interest in some topic I think is generally applicable to their lives.
- knightinblue 18y ago
  in some topic I think is generally applicable to their lives. No offense, but you have absolutely no business deciding what's applicable to someone else's life. Just because it's interesting to you doesn't mean it has to be for others. And if it isn't, it's still perfectly acceptable. I sigh when people judge others for not caring about things that they themselves care about.
  - hugothefrog 18y ago
    Fair point, and perhaps poorly worded on my behalf. You may disagree with me, but I think there is some political, social-economical, geo-political or even local-government topics that effect everyone. Or rather, there is at least one topic that effects every single person, whether they think it or not. That was more what I was getting at.

m104 18y ago

To those who may think that a lack of scientific understanding by the general population is not of significant concern, I know of no better quotation than the following: "We've arranged a civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces." - Carl Sagan, interview with Anne Kalosh, 1995

riffic 18y ago
dark ages II: dark harder!
- MaysonL 18y ago
  Indeed: I just read Dark Age Ahead by Jane Jacobs, and it's depressing. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Age-Ahead-Jane-Jacobs/dp/1400062322 http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Age-Ahead-Jane-Jacobs/dp/14000623...
kiba 18y ago
It is inefficent for everybody to learn to about science. It is better to let them specialize in whatever they're good at. This allow advanced division of labor so that we can have a really sophisticated civilization. It's a tradeoff.
- nebula 18y ago
  It is inefficient for everybody to learn to about science. I agree it's inefficient for everybody to learn advanced science; but basic science? Gravity for Newton's sake? Don't people spend around 10 years going through basic education? What are they learning in those 10 years if they can't even understand a tiny bit of how the world that we live in functions? Also, if you have read the article it's not just a failure to understand gravity, there was a severe lack of ability to apply logic (even by the TA that was teaching logic!). Well that says something about the education system. I would argue that everyone should learn at least the basics of science, and appreciate the fact that this marvelous civilization that we are living in is shaped by the very science that they don't fully comprehend.

RiderOfGiraffes 18y ago

Some time ago (and I really ought to spend some time trying to track down the original source) there was a questionaire in the UK. One question was "Does the Earth go around the Sun, or the Sun go around the Earth?" The followup question was "How long does it take?" Of those who got the first one right (remember that, they got it right) nearly 80% gave an answer on the followup that amount to "about a day." I have a mental model of how this can happen. For ordinary people on the street, the Sun goes around the Earth and it takes about a day. That's what they see, that's what they experience, and to them, that's what matter. Moreover, using the Earth as your frame of reference, they're right. However, it's been drilled into them as an unattached, unassociated, irrelevant-to-them "fact" that the Earth goes around the Sun. When presented with the first question, then, they parrot that answer, with no idea of what that actually means. This doesn't, therefore, mean they're stupid. It just means that they have a mental model of the world that works perfectly well for them, and they've been confused by "facts" that have no use. I'm not arguing it's good, or right, but at least it helps me understand how otherwise perfectly functional people can appear so stupid and irrational.

jhayes 18y ago
Again with the visualizing of a pre-newtonian world, a few years ago a physics TA (now a lecturer) made some observations on his Q&A sessions with some 1st years in Cambridge- they didn't hold up too well either but then again, changing your mental model of how the world works is no easy task I guess. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512158 http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512158 "1.4 Heavier objects fall faster The classic Aristotelian belief is that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. Surely three hundred years after Galileo showed otherwise, students no longer share this belief? Unfortunately, many do, but the belief shows up only in novel situations. Students know that if a stone and a cannonball fall, they should say that both objects hit the ground ‘at the same time’; if they have been carefully taught, they might even say ‘roughly at the same time’. They also know what to say about two objects sliding down an incline, that mass is irrelevant. However, when the problem includes the novel eﬀect of rolling (yet more trouble with circular motion!), many students have no practiced Newtonian answer to quote, and reveal their gut-level Aristotelian belief. For example, in Problem 23, about objects rolling down a plane, some students reasoned that an object with a large moment of inertia, such as a disc, rolls faster than an object with a small moment of inertia, such as a solid sphere. Two students argued that ‘moment of inertia is analogous to mass, and heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects’! I could not agree with the analogy, but I admired its boldness. The way that rehearsal hides this misconception reminds me of the theory of the English accent: that if you step on an Englishman’s toes in the middle of the night, he’ll shout at you in an American accent. On this view, the one true accent is American. An English accent is just an act, a mask dropped upon surprise. Similarly, the students’ response that ‘all objects fall at the same speed’ is carefully rehearsed. It falls away when we step on their toes by asking about it in a novel context, whereupon they reveal their true belief, that heavier objects fall faster.""

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

jgrahamc 18y ago

Given that the escape velocity on the Moon's surface is about 2.4 kps I can't see any astronaut having the strength (even if totally unencumbered) to jump up at that speed

Allocator2008 18y ago
I would not put it past Dennis Rodman, lol.
TweedHeads 18y ago
Or a lunar module for that matter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apollo16LM.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apollo16LM.jpg
- Zaak 18y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Escape_Systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Escape_Systems

Allocator2008 18y ago

This is a great story. I first recall when I first knew I was being misled by a teacher. I was in 9th grade earth science, and she had shown a documentary on the early history of the universe which had made reference to string theory. String theory posits perhaps 11 dimensions in some versions from what I gather. The teacher thought this was ridiculous and said something to the class to the effect of, well I can't even imagine having a fourth dimension, can you? Student Parrots: No! Teacher: Well then, of course string theory can't be right! Now I was 14, and it would still be a few years before I first would read 'A Brief History of Time' and so I knew nothing of string theory, but, I somehow knew, on some basic instinctual level that I was being misled in that moment, that just because the teacher could not "imagine" higher dimensions did not in and of itself mean that there could not possibly be higher dimensions in theory. Looking back, that was the start of a distrust in me with regards to the academic "establishment" which has continued in varying degrees to this very day. It is one of those epistemological moments of clarity: once one realizes it is possible to be misled by a teacher, which one naturally is conditioned to trust, then really who else could possibly mislead one? What sources can after all be trusted? Once one realizes the inherent fallibility of everyone, including one's teachers, then things just are not quite the same ever again, there is a certain loss of innocence there which can never be gotten back.

duncanj 18y ago
Indeed, I remember Hawking said in the book he had difficulty with visualizing the several dimensions he was working with.

oomkiller 18y ago

How could anyone in a college physics class miss this one? They really should have failed the class if they did, because they can't even grasp basic Newtonian physics.

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
- billswift 18y ago
  I think he was refering to the paragraph further down that started: "I decided to settle this question once and for all. Therefore, I put two multiple choice questions on my Physics 111 test, after the study of elementary mechanics and gravity."
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]

dilanj 18y ago

Um .. heavy boots will help to be more rooted to the ground (because of the additional momentum necessary to move them) and thus will help achieve a more natural walking experience, right? Am I missing something?

juanpablo 18y ago
You are right. I also think the Apollo astronauts probably did use heavy boots for that reason. But you're missing the point of the article.

nazgulnarsil 18y ago

Is everyone under the mistaken impression that a human is primarily a reasoning animal? Much of what appears to be "reason" is pattern recognition with no significant cognition backing it up. Don't think you're immune either. We all do a lot of things that if questioned closely is based on presuppositions that aren't ultimately as justifiable as we think.

parenthesis 18y ago
"Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason." – Oscar Wilde "It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this." – Bertrand Russell
HeyLaughingBoy 18y ago
Smartest thing I've read in this thread so far :-)

nazgulnarsil 18y ago

the thing not being taught in school isn't any basic fact, but critical thinking skills. I firmly believe from all my time as a tutor that there is a window in childhood during which children need certain stimulation to pick up these skills, and much like language if this window is missed it becomes much harder to train them later in life.

ableal 18y ago

An internet oldie. Here's another one: "Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig." -- Robert Heinlein Much 'education', classroom and otherwise, falls into this category. Not to mention that much of it is done by people who can't sing, anyway, or are teaching atonal "music". And the consequences are not tragic, either. Does anyone have scientific proof of the contrary ? (No, I'm not a drop-out - that's why I know ;-) P.S. nazgulnarsil nailed it (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=580529 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=580529 ). Neatly put, sir.

jcl 18y ago

For what it's worth, this story is absolutely ancient and possibly fictional. I think I originally read it in a humor collection on Gopher. We don't know who wrote it (it's not the guy hosting the page), so it should be taken with a grain of salt.