If science education had done its job right, you'd all be able to
correctly define the following terms: (physical) theory, (physical)
law, (physical) hypothesis, (physical) model, scientific method. So,
those of you that are so smug that you KNOW what the hell science is
really all about can define these terms for us here and now.

I can not remember one time in any class I've taken in science and
even in physics (I took the entire undergraduate core of physics
classes at a major university) in which any of these terms were
defined clearly, if they were defined at all! If your experience was
different, let us know what are those definitions you read. Please
give the references too.

Patrick

In article ,
(Patrick Reany) wrote:

If science education had done its job right,

You wouldn't be in a JRST .-1 loop.

.. you'd all be able to
correctly define the following terms: (physical) theory, (physical)
law, (physical) hypothesis, (physical) model, scientific method. So,
those of you that are so smug that you KNOW what the hell science is
really all about can define these terms for us here and now.

I can not remember one time in any class I've taken in science and
even in physics (I took the entire undergraduate core of physics
classes at a major university) in which any of these terms were
defined clearly, if they were defined at all! If your experience was
different, let us know what are those definitions you read. Please
give the references too.

I wouldn't define those terms in any of my books. Delete the words
(physical).


/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
om...
I can not remember one time in any class I've taken in science and
even in physics (I took the entire undergraduate core of physics
classes at a major university) in which any of these terms were
defined clearly, if they were defined at all! If your experience was
different, let us know what are those definitions you read. Please
give the references too.

I can.

References: Mr. Griffin, 7th grade science, 1959. Dr. Hewlett, Physics
11, 1965.

Patrick Reany wrote:

If science education had done its job right, you'd all be able to
correctly define the following terms: (physical) theory, (physical)
law, (physical) hypothesis, (physical) model, scientific method. So,
those of you that are so smug that you KNOW what the hell science is
really all about can define these terms for us here and now.


Yes, the only thing that excites students more than abstract
mathematical derivations is dwelling on the definition of terms.

-E

I can not remember one time in any class I've taken in science and
even in physics (I took the entire undergraduate core of physics
classes at a major university) in which any of these terms were
defined clearly, if they were defined at all! If your experience was
different, let us know what are those definitions you read. Please
give the references too.

Patrick

"Patrick Reany" wrote in message om...
If science education had done its job right, you'd all be able to
correctly define the following terms: (physical) theory, (physical)
law, (physical) hypothesis, (physical) model, scientific method. So,
those of you that are so smug that you KNOW what the hell science is
really all about can define these terms for us here and now.

I can not remember one time in any class I've taken in science and
even in physics (I took the entire undergraduate core of physics
classes at a major university) in which any of these terms were
defined clearly, if they were defined at all! If your experience was
different, let us know what are those definitions you read. Please
give the references too.

In my first year at the university we had a philosophy course
which focused on both the history and on the philosophy of
science. All the science students at our university got this same
course. It was given by the most interesting man I ever met:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22et...%22&lr=lang_en
(search restricted to articles in English).
It was no doubt also the most interesting course I ever had,
and knowing your standards, I'm sure you would feel the same.
After that, no science professor ever had to explain anything
anymore about the terms you listed in your post: we knew all
about it.
So I guess we were very lucky.

But anyway, "If science education had done its job right,"
.... then i.m.o. this place would still have the same number
of crackpots, kooks, trolls and morons. I think this is more
related to how this lot was -if at all- educated by their
parents at a much younger age... educated to become the
kind of people who, for the rest of their lives, resent being
educated any further.

Dirk Vdm

"Richard Henry" wrote in message news:07Rlb.68794$La.61846@fed1read02...
"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
om...
I can not remember one time in any class I've taken in science and
even in physics (I took the entire undergraduate core of physics
classes at a major university) in which any of these terms were
defined clearly, if they were defined at all! If your experience was
different, let us know what are those definitions you read. Please
give the references too.

I can.

References: Mr. Griffin, 7th grade science, 1959. Dr. Hewlett, Physics
11, 1965.

Great. Would you please provide those definitions for us here? TIA.

Patrick

Patrick Reany wrote:
If science education had done its job right, you'd all be able to
correctly define the following terms: (physical) theory, (physical)
law, (physical) hypothesis, (physical) model, scientific method. So,
those of you that are so smug that you KNOW what the hell science is
really all about can define these terms for us here and now.

This is minutae. The world breaks down into two classes. Fact and
hypothesis. Facts become known to us via perception. Hypotheses are
generated by thinking in order to organize known facts and predict facts
not yet known.

Sniggling and higgling over definitions rarely clarifies any essential
difficulties and rarely answers questions.

Bob Kolker

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message ...
"Patrick Reany" wrote in message om...
If science education had done its job right, you'd all be able to
correctly define the following terms: (physical) theory, (physical)
law, (physical) hypothesis, (physical) model, scientific method. So,
those of you that are so smug that you KNOW what the hell science is
really all about can define these terms for us here and now.

I can not remember one time in any class I've taken in science and
even in physics (I took the entire undergraduate core of physics
classes at a major university) in which any of these terms were
defined clearly, if they were defined at all! If your experience was
different, let us know what are those definitions you read. Please
give the references too.

In my first year at the university we had a philosophy course
which focused on both the history and on the philosophy of
science. All the science students at our university got this same
course. It was given by the most interesting man I ever met:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22et...%22&lr=lang_en
(search restricted to articles in English).
It was no doubt also the most interesting course I ever had,
and knowing your standards, I'm sure you would feel the same.
After that, no science professor ever had to explain anything
anymore about the terms you listed in your post: we knew all
about it.
So I guess we were very lucky.

Unbelievably lucky! Luckier that I was. I had to teach myself.


But anyway, "If science education had done its job right,"
... then i.m.o. this place would still have the same number
of crackpots, kooks, trolls and morons.

This I really doubt. I lay MOST of the blame for the existence of
their mindsets on the lousy way the educational system in the West
taught them science.

I think this is more
related to how this lot was -if at all- educated by their
parents at a much younger age... educated to become the
kind of people who, for the rest of their lives, resent being
educated any further.

Dirk Vdm

Dirk, what are grade school and high school students supposed to do to
understand the THEORY of evolution or Charles's Law if they have no
idea what a theory or law is? Are they supposed to wait until they get
this great course in college that you had? I assure you that most
students don't even get these terms defined for them in college or
university. You've seen it yourself on these NGs. We've had posters
tell us that relativity is ONLY a theory, not a LAW, as if a theory is
just an inferior form of a law, which it ain't. It's the educational
system itself that is to blame for these misconceptions that YOU seem
to be content to allow to continue into the distant future. An ounce
of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

How the hell are students supposed to understand science, and NOT just
develop even more misconceptions than they typically have going into
schools, if these fundamental terms are not defined properly for them
in a timely manner? Do we really want students to understand science,
or do we just want to force feed them a bunch of mindless crap to be
regurgitated back at test time?

Educators should have their own form of the Hypocratic Oath: Above all
else do no harm -- in context meaning, introduce no misconceptions
into the minds of the students. It's perhaps an impossible goal, but a
good one to strive for anyway. Why do we always set our standards so
low?

Patrick

Patrick Reany wrote:
If science education had done its job right, you'd all be able to
correctly define the following terms: (physical) theory, (physical)
law, (physical) hypothesis, (physical) model, scientific method. So,
those of you that are so smug that you KNOW what the hell science is
really all about can define these terms for us here and now.

I can not remember one time in any class I've taken in science and
even in physics (I took the entire undergraduate core of physics
classes at a major university) in which any of these terms were
defined clearly, if they were defined at all! If your experience was
different, let us know what are those definitions you read. Please
give the references too.

I think you're right (except perhaps about who's at fault) - those are
commonly used terms that don't usually get clearly defined. After
thinking about it for a while, here's what I came up with. I hope it
generates some discussion.

Theory - an axiomatic system consisting of undefined terms, relations
and an assumed consistent set of axioms (presumed relationships between
terms) from which theorems are derived using inferential logic.

(physical) Interpretation - a 1-1 correspondence between the terms and
relations of a Theory and natural phenomena.

Model - an Interpretation in which all the Interpreted axioms and
theorems are true.

(physical) Principle - the Interpretation of an axiom.

(physical) Law - the Interpretation of a theorem that's been confirmed
by a "sufficient" amount of experimentation.

(physical) Hypothesis - a conjecture about Nature - a proposed theorem.

Scientific method - the development of a Theory together with an
Interpretation that's proposed as a Model for some subset of Nature and
the subsequent attempt to refute that proposal through experimentation.

EjP wrote in message ...
Patrick Reany wrote:

If science education had done its job right, you'd all be able to
correctly define the following terms: (physical) theory, (physical)
law, (physical) hypothesis, (physical) model, scientific method. So,
those of you that are so smug that you KNOW what the hell science is
really all about can define these terms for us here and now.


Yes, the only thing that excites students more than abstract
mathematical derivations is dwelling on the definition of terms.

-E

Well maybe that's the educators's fault. Isn't it just damn
commonsense that educators not demand that students adopt a term for
use in class that the educators have no intention of defining for
them? Why do you argue for this ridiculous exemption from educators
defining terms in science, an exemption which has no parallel in any
other educational field?

I notice that you haven't been quick to define these terms for us.


I can not remember one time in any class I've taken in science and
even in physics (I took the entire undergraduate core of physics
classes at a major university) in which any of these terms were
defined clearly, if they were defined at all! If your experience was
different, let us know what are those definitions you read. Please
give the references too.

Patrick

Patrick