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.
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.
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.""
Meeting a friend in a corridor, Wittgenstein said: “Tell me, why do people always say that it was natural for men to assume that the sun went around the earth rather than that the earth was rotating?” His friend said, “Well, obviously, because it just looks as if the sun is going around the earth.” To which the philosopher replied, “Well, what would it have looked like if it had looked as if the earth was rotating?”
Tom Stoppard is always a joy, but there are often points to be picked apart. Wittgenstein's friend's answer was simply wrong. The reason is that they both look the same, and the Earth feels stationary. By that observation people choose the model that feels more correct and relevant.
I think it's valid to assume that this was before the (galilean) principle of relativity. Even today many (most?) people don't know that it's ok to choose either model.
Neither of the answers is quite right, though. Ignoring the rest of the mass in the solar system, the answer is that they both orbit the center of their combined masses. This happens to be located somewhere inside the sun's volume, but definitely not at it's center. So neither goes around the other.
That the earth goes around the sun is a pretty good approximation of the actual phenomenon, sure, but the approximation, in it's wrongness, loses the power of the real answer to actually explain what's happening.
Pedantry perhaps, but If we want people to have a better model, let's make it the right one.
And let's have none of this Newtonian nonsense, let's all use GR in our everyday lives. Newtonian physics is clearly wrong, so if we want people to have a better model, let's make it the right one.
All models are wrong, some models are useful. The model that the Sun goes around the Earth is perfectly adequate for most people.
I'm not saying this is good, or that people shouldn't learn about things, but realising that other people have different priorities from mine was a big step in my life. For many people, their model is good enough.
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."
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 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.
Yes, it's inefficient for everybody to learn details about specific scientific subjects.
What people should learn is the scientific process, how does science advance, how do we know the things we know. And they should learn how much we owe the scientific method, people should know that if not for science we would still be freezing, starving and dying of easily preventable diseases, that the comfortable lives we live today is a result of scientific thinking.
If you have read 'God Delusion', you would see how much of that damage is already being done.
And "God Strikes Back" parts in 'The Genius of Darwin' documentary: Many schools, public funded to a large extent, dump evolution in favor of 'Creationism'. A science teacher, who was interviewed believes that the Earth is less than a ten thousand years old, because God said so in that holy book.
I don't necessarily want to start a flame war, but it is inaccurate to say "God said so in that holy book." People have added up the number of years that are mentioned in the Bible and claimed that the earth is only that old. A decent amount of Genesis can be looked at not as literal history, but a summary. This is done even by some very conservative scholars who believe that God is the creator and also believe that the earth really is as old as science says it is.
but it is inaccurate to say "God said so in that holy book."
I didn't claim that God said so. I just quoted the science teacher that was interviewed. Go watch the video and wonder why Governments and parents are allowing these kind of morons to teach science.
Moreover my point was not about how to interpret a particular event described in a particular book; far from it. I was expressing outrage at the fact that a science teacher would believe that the Earth is just a few thousand years old, throwing all the science in the dust bin. More importantly he is teaching the same thing to children and is getting away with it.
PS: through the revealed preference of coming into the defense of the book, though I didn't find faults with it, you gave out a lot about why you made the comment. But I'm going to pass over it.
I wasn't responding to you directly. Your comment put forth the assertion that God said something. He didn't. It's not in the Bible and though some Christians claim it is true, that doesn't make it so. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that.
PS: You can't claim to pass over something while talking about it in a PS.
Yes, but that is a relatively new interpretation right? Funny how religions have a way to, at least sometimes, adapt themselves, to evolve there, sometimes, core truths, yet still claim to be based on immutable facts, long time ago revealed. From a sufficiently zoomed back time scale, they seem almost agile... like startups... As I said... funny. :)
That's nice. What proportion of the population is mentally capable of the abstraction and symbolic logic necessary for science? Somewhere between forty and sixteen per cent and forty would really blow my mind. For the maintenance of our way of life we don't need scientists, we need engineers (not suggesting they're scientifically ignorant) Most people are way more interested in people than things so enthusiasm for science is limited to a subset of those capable of it. Sagan was only right if you're in the context of rebuilding after a disaster and if interested amateurs have much to offer we're probably all screwed.
>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.
Sorry that I intercept, but that <em>there are</em> "people [who] still ask this question" is an indicator only for that <em>there are</em> people "only in school for the degree" but not for that people <em>in general</em> are "only in school for the degree". Then if so, what about yourself?
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
I always enjoy chatting with people about the Monty Hall problem. That separates the people with flexible minds (or statistics knowledge) from all the rest...
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.
"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 ?
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.
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.
That's true, as Feynman put it, you are never absolutely sure of anything in the physical world, everything is reasonably correct by some probability and it's this kind of thinking that is hard to achieve for a normal person, but absolutely essential for a scientist.
That's why I am an agnostic, I am not entirely sure of the existence of God, but I am reasonably sure that he/she doesn't exist!
Well that depends entirely on which theory of gravity you believe in.
I personally like the whole anti-theory about gravity being produced by vacuums, because when you argue it against someone unknowlegable it makes pseudo-sense. However anyone with any clue of physics knows this is the easiest debunked theory in the world. I mean vacuum tube factories would have exploded in anti-gravity force.
Actually, we're doing a lot better now than we used to be, as IQ scores seem to be increasing over time.
As much as any such observation may have been measured correctly, it doesn't logically follow that intelligence itself is increasing, because of a variety of factors. The link you posted provides some of them.
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.
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?
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
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.