@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
This is exactly right. You are proving my point.
You can check that 8 x 8 = 64 because in this case you have a good enough knowledge of the mathematics involved to check for yourself. Presumably you learned about addition and multiplication in a mathematics class that likely involved lectures and problem sets.
This is a perfect example of where you have a level of expertise. There is a right answer and wrong answers. And you can check if for yourself and confirm that this is the right answer.
Now if someone who didn't understand what addition was and didn't want to take the time to learn it told you that 8 x 8 = 61, how would you explain to them that they were wrong? You can do the counting all you want, if they don't accept how you know addition works, that isn't going to convince them.
Are you an authoritarian in the case of 8 x 8 = 64, or are you willing to consider different answers.
It's not authoritarian to know the right answer and explain it. It's authoritarian to dismiss the need for understanding in accepting what's right, or to dismiss different perspectives without listening to them and giving them fair consideration.
Math is a bad example because it is obvious to anyone who understand multiplication why 8x8=64 and not 61. But when you are dealing with more complex scientific claims and theories, you should be aware of what the claims/theories are based on.
Take universal expansion, for example. It is based on Hubble's observation that there was uniform redshift in all galaxies. That pattern was then interpreted as an indication that those galaxies are moving away from the Milky Way.
If someone wants to question whether there is some other explanation for the redshift pattern, that's legitimate. We don't yet have any way to confirm that those galaxies are moving away, e.g. by sending probes and measuring the time it takes for them to arrive and return. So there is no data to prove some alternative hypothesis wrong; it's simply a question of speculation.
Whenever you raise such issues for discussion with authoritarian scientists, though, they usually immediately start talking about not wanting to throw out existing theory, etc. as if you have to throw out a theory to formulate/consider alternatives.
It really comes down to people who would rather argue about agreeing with what's mainstream instead of practicing critical thinking about how to deal scientifically with dissent, i.e. by fleshing out what we know, how we know it, and what other interpretations are (im)possible for data and why or why not.
A good science teacher explores knowledge and how it is known/understood; while an authoritarian teacher just insists that the right answer be accepted without questioning/understanding because it's the right answer.
Now, having said that I will agree with you that there are classroom situations that just don't lend themselves to in-depth discussion of knowledge because of time constraints and/or other issues that require students just get through memorizing the basic dogma so that they have something to question and analyze later when there is time for that. In that case, you should explain that questioning leads to deeper learning but there's no time for it at the moment. You should say that not as a clever way of dismissing questioning, but mean it sincerely because you truly understand how questioning and critical thinking lead people to interact with received knowledge in a way that understands it for what it is, how it was arrived at, etc. so that they can see that science is a process of theory-building and not scientists coming down from the mountain with set-in-stone facts that magically appeared as gems of truth from thin air.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace