Einstein's General Relativity

Well Thomas, I was responding to a rather vague thesis (that there are in fact problems with physics education). The only pieces of evidence offered for the as of yet undefined problem in education are General Relativity and studies predicting doom made during the past 38 years.

If someone could give coherent evidence of a problem-- or even define what the problem is, it would be easier for me to respond.

Until then I can only give the reasons I believe there is not a problem (it is downright impossible to disprove such a poorly defined thesis).

My point is that the US society has done very well for generations- with scientific leadership, engineering innovation and a strong economy in spite of the continual dire prophecies of doom for the state of US science education. What has happened in the US in the past 100 years is evidence that we are doing something right.

No, ebrown p, your response shows that you have not read John Warren's paper. Secondly, as you have referred to US Sci and Eng, let me add that there is a Nobel Laureate (in physics) who is at present in his mid-fifties (means he was a high-school pupil around the period you mention) stated he had maximum trouble in learning classical mechanics. That statement is in Physics Today, of the AIP. What does this information show?

That the US public education system produces Nobel Laureates (in physics).

((Of course arguing by anecdote is quite unscientific))

I'm pretty sure that physics, metallurgy, chemistry, medicine, etc. are important to people's productivity. Most people just don't care to look behind the curtain to see what the wizard is doing.

On that point, we agree.

DrewDad...

I am saying that knowledge of physics, metallurgy, chemistry, medicine is not important to most peoples productivity.

How well do you know what is happening in the semiconductors in your computer as you read this message? Does it matter?

I probably didn't express myself well. What I meant was that, in your nomenclature, very few people are wizards. For the others -- almost all the population -- their education in wizardry could get totally screwed up, and it still wouldn't affect their productivity much.

I was just having fun with pedantry.

IMO, we're doing pretty well with the wizards that we have. Most progress is made by geniuses, who are going to seek challenges in spite of the educational system, not because of it.

I consider myself pretty smart, but I would never have invented Calculus. Yet Newton and Liebniz both did it independently.

We stand on the shoulders of giants.

I would certainly be the wrong person to throw the first stone at you for this.

Questions:

1) Why is the word productive / productivity a merited yardstick in this context (note it's used 15 times in the posts prior to this one)?

2) Wouldn't it be reasonable to say that a socially equitable society / society with an ecologically-secure future would be at least as merited, if not dramatically more, so that some vague reference to (what I assume is) economic productivity?

Those are interesting questions, Chumly...

What a society produces is undoubtedly one yardstick when talking about education. I think the valid question is whether there are other yardsticks with merit.

You point about an ecologically-secure future is a good one. I would like to find a term that includes "innovation", "improvement of living conditions" and "ecological security"-- "productivity" is not really the word I want.

Social equity, in my opinion, is a completely different goal. I don't believe that science education addresses (or should address) social equity at all. In fact, outside of human society, the Universe cares not a whit about social equity. This is a values-based topic that should be addressed in social studies classes.

But regardless of all of these points... my questions are still the same...

1) What evidence is there of an emergency in science education?
2) What issues are solved by giving more people a deeper understanding (then they already have) of hard science?

I contend that the science education received by Americans in public schools is completely sufficient for them individually, and for society as a whole.

We need everyone to have a very basic exposure to science. We need a very small number of people who will go on to a very deep mastery of science. We seem to be succeeding in both of these cases.

You ask: ' What evidence is there of an emergency in science education?" Yipes, the term "science education" is awfully broad, as is your choice of the word "emergency" vague.

To start, the word "emergency" in the context given appears to presuppose that there is / would be / could be some sort of crisis, and this then presupposes that society needs further "science education" else there will be some sort of (as of yet defined) crisis which can best be avoided by further science education! Kind'a circular there old pal!

You ask: "What issues are solved by giving more people a deeper understanding of hard science?" Yipes, I could just as easily counter your presupposition of so-called "issues" by asking why you couch your question in the rhetorical as if to imply there are "issues" that would be solved, and further that these so-called "issues" issues have merit to the general considerations at hand, of which I would argue are as stated prior: "a socially equitable society / society with an ecologically-secure future".

I consider science a tool, and science education only one of a number of ways for furtherance of said tool (if it can be argued that furtherance of said tool is a net benefit), but my claim that science is a tool does not diminish my claim as per prior: "a socially equitable society / society with an ecologically-secure future" in the context of science education.

BTW, FWI, I love science, scientific disciplines, technology, gadgets etc and I have no spiritual, religious, superstitious belief systems…………..but that does not mean I blindly embrace science for and of its own sake, especially within the context of man’s foibles / science education.

Nor do I consider the argument of supply and demand viable as per science education, because demand in this context needs to assigned some sort of value or lack thereof.

First, your point about the vagueness of the "emergency in science education" was exactly my point. This supposed emergency was the initial thesis of this thread.

The purpose of education is an interesting area of discussion.

Science, however, provides absolutely no insight into what the purpose of anything is (or should be). However, scientific thinking can be used to evaluate whether a given policy meets its said purpose. I understand and accept the goals that you have set forward (as long as we agree that they are completely subjective). I want to push on your idea that science is a tool.

How do you think science can be used to bring about "social equity"?

No, I do not think that statement about Einstein's GR is wrong. Actually, this statement was made, first, by Dennis Sciama in the preface of his famous small book on foundations of GR. So, you can have look at that book itself in some British university.

In direct answer to your question: "How do you think science can be used to bring about social equity?" A much-much smaller human population in concert with applied science for quality of life would have a higher likelihood for social equity, than the net present extrapolated trends.

Not high-tech, nor new and exciting; but it is applied science and sensibility: condoms and birth control pills……..lots of them!

There are a couple of problems with that.

First, there is no evidence that a smaller human population would lead to greater social equity. In fact, the direct opposite is true. As the world population has increased, social equity has, at least in my opinion, improved considerably (I am not suggesting a causal relationship... I am only challenging your unsupported assumption).

Any opinion on the proper human population is necessarily based on a great deal of value judgments... and science is worthless in dealing with value judgments.

Second, science has done a great deal to increase the human population. We have had a catastrophic drop in infant mortality and deaths from childhood illnesses.

There are hundreds of millions, if not billions of people who would not be alive today if they, their parents or their grandparents were not saved by antibiotics. Then there are the famines we have stopped through agriculture, lives we have saved by engineering buildings and diseases we have stopped through sanitation.

One must also consider that with a "much-much smaller human population" that there would be many fewer geniuses. Geniuses fuel progress.

Given your blanket unsubstantiated statement, there is no way you can accurately claim that our present population assures a net beneficial increase of so-called "progress" over a smaller population.

You have yet to even define "progress" in the context given.
You have yet to even to substantiate that "progress" in the context given would be a net benefit as per "a socially equitable society / society with an ecologically-secure future".

There are so-called “problems” with everything, however that does not change the fundamental argument that a sane, small, forward-thinking, stable, eco-friendly population has the potential to better take advantage of applied science / science education than the present high-risk population conditions as per "a socially equitable society / society with an ecologically-secure future".