Philosophy of Science
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-02-2015, 04:54 PM
RE: Philosophy of Science
"Are they 4 year olds?"

No, they are worse. They are adults who don't understand education or science. I can give 4 year olds a pass based on reasonable levels of immaturity and ignorance.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2015, 04:58 PM
RE: Philosophy of Science
(14-02-2015 04:53 PM)Anjele Wrote:  
(14-02-2015 04:52 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  It is very exciting when they want to learn, and very frustrating when they are only there because they think that education is about showing up and filling in blanks and then getting a grade that certifies them as educated.

Students don't understand grades, or assignments, or education. At least not most of them sadly.

Do you think it has to do with years of studying for the sole purpose of passing standardized tests?

Students are conditioned to perform on tests and only participate in learning as much as it requires them to memorize information.

I don't say that based on my experience being a teaching assistant, I say that knowing my experience as a college student and as a teaching assistant. I struggled greatly with letting go of the importance of the grade as a qualification, and that it was instead an evaluation of what I had learned.

Students don't make connections, not enough of them anyways. So when I walk them through something and connect 2 seemingly disparate topics, they are amazed. The reality is that very often they should have been able to make the connection themselves.

And it is doubly frustrating when most of the students could be pretty dadgum good if they were a little more self-aware of how to connect ideas.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2015, 05:02 PM
RE: Philosophy of Science
It just seems to me that everything is about passing the standardized tests. And to do that, there is only one correct answer. I don't think that thinking is taught or encouraged like it should be. Not only are students assessed with those tests but so are the teachers and the schools. Especially elementary and high school.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat

Are my Chakras on straight?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
14-02-2015, 05:06 PM
RE: Philosophy of Science
(14-02-2015 05:02 PM)Anjele Wrote:  It just seems to me that everything is about passing the standardized tests. And to do that, there is only one correct answer. I don't think that thinking is taught or encouraged like it should be. Not only are students assessed with those tests but so are the teachers and the schools. Especially elementary and high school.

Far too much emphasis is on the tests, that is the education system I was brought up in and the one that still prevails. It not only trains students to memorize instead of connect through critical thinking, but it also teaches them to be reliant upon the absolute knowledge being bestowed upon them by the person at the front of the class.

It is a very difficult thought process to break away from.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
14-02-2015, 05:08 PM
RE: Philosophy of Science
(14-02-2015 05:06 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(14-02-2015 05:02 PM)Anjele Wrote:  It just seems to me that everything is about passing the standardized tests. And to do that, there is only one correct answer. I don't think that thinking is taught or encouraged like it should be. Not only are students assessed with those tests but so are the teachers and the schools. Especially elementary and high school.

Far too much emphasis is on the tests, that is the education system I was brought up in and the one that still prevails. It not only trains students to memorize instead of connect through critical thinking, but it also teaches them to be reliant upon the absolute knowledge being bestowed upon them by the person at the front of the class.

It is a very difficult thought process to break away from.

My dad once told me about an experience when he was in vet school. He said that he didn't need to know the right answer, he needed to know what the professor said was the right answer.

That's scary.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat

Are my Chakras on straight?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
14-02-2015, 05:09 PM
RE: Philosophy of Science
I have students get mad that I give them weekly quizzes on the material from the previous week. Because my quizzes ask them to be able to do something they did the previous week and understand it. And simply doing the assignment by filling in blanks, isn't going to cut it. They have to want to actually learn it. And they hate the responsibility of their grade being on them. If they get a bad grade, they (and I say this realizing full well that this is what I used to think and still catch myself thinking when I take the occasional class) automatically blame the instructor.

That is why student evaluations are complete rubbish. They don't evaluate the teaching skills or the class information, they grade it based on the grade they receive. So if they do well, they rate the instructor and the class well and vice versa. I have never gotten any good information for improving my teaching or assignments from student evaluations.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2015, 05:12 PM
RE: Philosophy of Science
(14-02-2015 05:06 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(14-02-2015 05:02 PM)Anjele Wrote:  It just seems to me that everything is about passing the standardized tests. And to do that, there is only one correct answer. I don't think that thinking is taught or encouraged like it should be. Not only are students assessed with those tests but so are the teachers and the schools. Especially elementary and high school.

Far too much emphasis is on the tests, that is the education system I was brought up in and the one that still prevails. It not only trains students to memorize instead of connect through critical thinking, but it also teaches them to be reliant upon the absolute knowledge being bestowed upon them by the person at the front of the class.

It is a very difficult thought process to break away from.

That is what a lot of these students don't realize. There simply isn't one right answer for a lot of this.

I give them sedimentary rocks and ask them to describe them, and they instantly want the exact location it formed in. They don't understand that there is no one answer for a lot of these and that more context is needed. They think it is a script. A + B = C.

They don't realize it is Ax +B^2y - 4z = ?
And that they have to make hypotheses to start figuring out which answers are more or less likely.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2015, 05:13 PM
RE: Philosophy of Science
(14-02-2015 11:14 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  It has me thinking about the core philosophy of science, and how (as the above article points out) the religious have tried to hijack the debates related to science into a semantics argument over their definitions of science as opposed to the scientific.

The framework behind science is Methodological naturalism
Quote:Methodological naturalism concerns itself not with claims about what exists but with methods of learning what nature is. It is strictly the idea that all scientific endeavors—all hypotheses and events—are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events.
The creationists don't like this. They argue that this is a biased principle as, by definition, it doesn't allow for supernatural explanation (a.k.a. god).

They see science as a threat to their own ideology as they see people turning to science rather than theology regarding the explanation for how the world works.

So they attempt to redefine science towards an "unbiased" framework for discovery.
The problem with including supernatural explanation in science is that it is untestable, unmeasurable, unfalsifiable. If you include supernatural explanation into science then science will no longer be a method of discovery for any gaps they find the explanation will be that "god did it". Objectivity will be out the window because, perhaps it was the Christian god that did it, or perhaps the Muslim god, or perhaps the Maori gods did it, or perhaps Vishnu etc, or maybe it was the fairies, or maybe because the stars were aligned in the constellation of Aquarius?

Science is fundamentally incompatible with theology as an endeavor to gain knowledge about the universe, they cannot both exist under the same framework.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
14-02-2015, 05:15 PM
RE: Philosophy of Science
(14-02-2015 05:13 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(14-02-2015 11:14 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  It has me thinking about the core philosophy of science, and how (as the above article points out) the religious have tried to hijack the debates related to science into a semantics argument over their definitions of science as opposed to the scientific.

The framework behind science is Methodological naturalism
Quote:Methodological naturalism concerns itself not with claims about what exists but with methods of learning what nature is. It is strictly the idea that all scientific endeavors—all hypotheses and events—are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events.
The creationists don't like this. They argue that this is a biased principle as, by definition, it doesn't allow for supernatural explanation (a.k.a. god).

They see science as a threat to their own ideology as they see people turning to science rather than theology regarding the explanation for how the world works.

So they attempt to redefine science towards an "unbiased" framework for discovery.
The problem with including supernatural explanation in science is that it is untestable, unmeasurable, unfalsifiable. If you include supernatural explanation into science then science will no longer be a method of discovery for any gaps they find the explanation will be that "god did it". Objectivity will be out the window because, perhaps it was the Christian god that did it, or perhaps the Muslim god, or perhaps the Maori gods did it, or perhaps Vishnu etc, or maybe it was the fairies, or maybe because the stars were aligned in the constellation of Aquarius?

Science is fundamentally incompatible with theology as an endeavor to gain knowledge about the universe, they cannot both exist under the same framework.

And Ontological Naturalism

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: