Instead of what Science should be, I will speak of what Science shouldn't be:
1. It should not be thought of as static. New discoveries lead to new info which lead to new theories, sometimes at the expense of the old. Science is very dynamic and though we need to learn what has been found so far, let's not turn it into what is always going to be found - a sad state in our schools.
2. Science cannot and should not be the starting point of every human endeavor. Nowadays, even art is becoming formulaic; the muse-inspired artist that Plato spoke of is a rarity. However, when one looks at it closely, one realizes that it was a similar situation in Plato's time which must have occasioned his thoughts on it and his effusive criticisms of the calculator artists.
Now, every little invention becomes standard practice, 'standard practice' - a scientific way of looking at the world. Art and Science always stand counterpoint to each other so I shouldn't be speaking about this as their eternal hostilities will just show what I seek to say, but it needs a human voice to back it up. That split between Art and Science is exemplified by the artist, William Blake, who criticized Science so vehemently; he however did not hate Science as he was too intelligent for that, he saw its use. Art is a liberator, Science is law. Science has to structure things, produce 'standards' lest our world falls. Art is just a happy toddler creating and forgetting what he has created leaving a mess behind him.
3. Science should not simply be theory, science is much valued for its practical use. Except for that, there will be nothing special about science and it would remain in the cot of Philosophy for all eternity. Science is what is empirically valid, we must find that in our schools and raise creative applicators, not only applicators; for an empirical method of learning already is in line with a practical style.
4. Learning, in general, in our schools is bogged down in minutiae. One thing that dismayed Einstein and led to him leaving school was a lack of creativity. Engage the students, let them think creatively about their approaches, sometimes it might not even match the 'standards' but it does not mean it is wrong, rather, the attitude to something like that should be "let's follow it and see where it goes".
5. There is also the issue of not investigating the fundaments of what we learn in our schools. We don't investigate the philosophical underpinnings of what is there, we should allow that. I remember once in my physics class that I asked a question and my teacher was stunned momentarily but came up with an apt answer, "I don't know but this one is useful so let's go on, we can find the other out later" at which we both smiled. This is an example of an encouraging teacher and a lover of learning. I was always depressed by the way school went, you couldn't question the assumptions made in developing a theory or something like that and you were made to just gobble it all up. It never was conducive to me, to me, I hadn't understood what I was supposed to have learned.
6. The fifth point leads to this: let's not get caught in the illusion that learning invariably has to be stepwise. One inane excuse they make is "that is an advanced level so let's not go there" when you ask a question that is supposed to take you to the higher levels. We are in school to learn, let us learn; you can't predict what my mind can do too so let's go and see. School almost ruined my love for learning; we must learn so let us learn.
1. It should not be thought of as static. New discoveries lead to new info which lead to new theories, sometimes at the expense of the old. Science is very dynamic and though we need to learn what has been found so far, let's not turn it into what is always going to be found - a sad state in our schools.
2. Science cannot and should not be the starting point of every human endeavor. Nowadays, even art is becoming formulaic; the muse-inspired artist that Plato spoke of is a rarity. However, when one looks at it closely, one realizes that it was a similar situation in Plato's time which must have occasioned his thoughts on it and his effusive criticisms of the calculator artists.
Now, every little invention becomes standard practice, 'standard practice' - a scientific way of looking at the world. Art and Science always stand counterpoint to each other so I shouldn't be speaking about this as their eternal hostilities will just show what I seek to say, but it needs a human voice to back it up. That split between Art and Science is exemplified by the artist, William Blake, who criticized Science so vehemently; he however did not hate Science as he was too intelligent for that, he saw its use. Art is a liberator, Science is law. Science has to structure things, produce 'standards' lest our world falls. Art is just a happy toddler creating and forgetting what he has created leaving a mess behind him.
3. Science should not simply be theory, science is much valued for its practical use. Except for that, there will be nothing special about science and it would remain in the cot of Philosophy for all eternity. Science is what is empirically valid, we must find that in our schools and raise creative applicators, not only applicators; for an empirical method of learning already is in line with a practical style.
4. Learning, in general, in our schools is bogged down in minutiae. One thing that dismayed Einstein and led to him leaving school was a lack of creativity. Engage the students, let them think creatively about their approaches, sometimes it might not even match the 'standards' but it does not mean it is wrong, rather, the attitude to something like that should be "let's follow it and see where it goes".
5. There is also the issue of not investigating the fundaments of what we learn in our schools. We don't investigate the philosophical underpinnings of what is there, we should allow that. I remember once in my physics class that I asked a question and my teacher was stunned momentarily but came up with an apt answer, "I don't know but this one is useful so let's go on, we can find the other out later" at which we both smiled. This is an example of an encouraging teacher and a lover of learning. I was always depressed by the way school went, you couldn't question the assumptions made in developing a theory or something like that and you were made to just gobble it all up. It never was conducive to me, to me, I hadn't understood what I was supposed to have learned.
6. The fifth point leads to this: let's not get caught in the illusion that learning invariably has to be stepwise. One inane excuse they make is "that is an advanced level so let's not go there" when you ask a question that is supposed to take you to the higher levels. We are in school to learn, let us learn; you can't predict what my mind can do too so let's go and see. School almost ruined my love for learning; we must learn so let us learn.
No comments:
Post a Comment