James_Sheils said:
I am a maths and physics graduate who has taught physics in secondary schools in the UK for around 6 years. During this time, I've thought quite carefully about which parts of scientific inquiry are worth teaching - which ideas and skills are valuable.
So have many of us. Do you recognize that this practice generates in you a number of opinions, that can be expressed without automatically assuming yours is the complete and final truth of the matter? The most important element of the art of advancing an opinion is the high regard for decorum, civility, and the right to respectfully disagree. Polemic diatribes are both easy, and tempting, but often limit their impact to a relatively small set of die-hard afficionados.
Most important of all, any citizen will benefit from understanding the process of scientific thinking. The role of evidence in falsification, what constitutes a scientific theory, how logic is utilized to determine consequences of a theory, the imaginative guesses that bring about new theories. All of this equips a person with thinking skills and understanding they can apply to enrich their lives, and their understanding of the latest research.
Absolutely, essentially any science educator would agree with that. The issue is, does each person who gets on the internet for a half hour or hour presentation need to feel responsible for all that, or is this more logically the mission of the science educator in the classroom setting?
Values to extract from this include: anti-authoritarianism, fallibilism, logical analysis, philosophical reflection and courageous imaginations.
I agree completely, and indeed from your comments on Dr. Cox I formed the opinion that you are most likely both very capable, and very dedicated, in your science education mission. You probably teach very well, and linked to others who do also. But none of those facts actually justify that vitriolic critique. Not everyone needs to adopt the same mission that you would, in order to be considered of value to science in some objective or demonstrable way. In short, they do not necessarily need to submit to your judgement of their performance. The question is, what audience is your criticism intended for? If you want Brian Cox to pay heed, the tone would rule that out-- I doubt he would read past the first few paragraphs. If your goal is to get people who like to listen to him to boycott him and listen to others that meet with your approval, I doubt you'll have much success-- those inclined to agree with you have probably already formed a similar opinion and don't seek out Dr. Cox's presentations, and those who like them will most likely not be dissuaded, because they simply won't agree with you. If you want to reach that crowd, I think you'd do better with your own presentation-- enlighten and entertain in your own way, achieving those goals that you value, and reach that clientele in that manner. That would accomplish the same goal, but more effectively than a largely unfocused critique-- it's easier to teach than to unteach.
So what to do with a 1 hour presentation? Now, I'm sure there will be much noise about how producers won't agree to programs that present these 'old' ideas. But Cox seems to command a lot of respect - they have already agreed to let him give a one hour lecture with a blackboard.
And this is the fundamental flaw in your position. Here you suggest that your goal is to convince Brian Cox to use his hour differently. Do you really think the way you presented your position is likely to accomplish that? Your comments are not even directed to Dr. Cox, they are directed to people who would listen to him. So your goal is clearly not to get Dr. Cox to use his hour more effectively, which would be a constructive goal (though presumptuous), it is to get those who would listen to his hour to avoid it or join in the Brian-bashing. How is that going to teach people Newton's laws?
What's more, you are overlooking the fact that there may be a reason that Dr. Cox is getting this hour (and a blackboard!), and neither you nor I are-- he has proven the ability to entertain and energize his viewers. Personally I think I could put together something that would be entertaining and enlightening also, which you might find less occasion to criticize if we share similar educational values, but I'm not going to get the opportunity to reach such a huge audience. I'm just not, the issue is moot. So I can see value in a certain trade-off there-- yes, perhaps there is an overemphasis on what is titillating rather than what is good basic science, but it's not such a bad exchange to get these ideas out there to people, to help them see that scientists are not just in ivory towers discovering arcane looking equations that somehow helps us build better iPads. Instead, we are getting glimpses deep into the workings of our reality, and getting quite amazed in the process, and we are inclined to want to share some of that experience with a larger audience.
It is disappointing that he has decided to present something so esoteric, yet mostly rely on intellectual intimidation and argument from authority to establish the results. Sure, he tried some underrehearsed explanations and demonstration, but the material was far too broad for even the greatest of educators to do a good job.
OK, so maybe not everything he did worked as well as it could have, and maybe he can learn some lessons for next time. He probably knows that, or if he doesn't, a simple constructive comment might be all that would be needed. What's the purpose behind all the bashing? That's what I really think you should look at more closely, what is really pushing your buttons here? For example, why do you think that his primary motivation is to make himself feel smart? I think it's pretty clear what his primary motivation is, it is to share with others some of the amazing glimpses he feels he has gotten into our reality. Of course it's also fun to feel smart, and of course it's also a rush to be able to entertain, I hardly think we can criticize the comedian for liking to hear a house full of laughter!
Most dangerous of all, it encourages already arrogant students to presume they have understood an idea, when they have merely remembered some impressive words. I have met many students who have tried to explain black holes to me, or something about string theory. I always fell a sympathy that these curious minds have been duped by yet another shallow presentation of scientific inquiry.
But this is unavoidable. Do you really think this never happens to your students? At least the people in question are interested in something that connects with science-- the alternative may be the absence of any of that.
Or, there are the adults I meet who tell me they are 'really interested in science' and then ask me about m-theory, or black-holes.
OK, but the point is, maybe they would
not have said they were interested in science and then talked about Newton's laws! That's what you have to include in your calculations. I have had some small success getting people jazzed about Newton's laws, but the fact is, it's just a lot harder-- the number of people who are going to feel that way is just less than it is for the wilder stuff. That I believe is Dr. Cox's primary motivation for his subject selection, not the desire to feel smart.
"Why do some object float in water?" I ask them. Most of them have nothing to say about this. Now I ask you, if a person cannot connect the perceptions of their experience with scientific patterns, what is the possible value in describing the theoretical intricacies of the latest research?
It is simply not an either/or propositon.
In short, I think presentations like Cox's contributes to a social game that people play, to impress and stupefy. But not to understand.
And there's certainly some truth to that. This is a valid criticism that can be raised, but it doesn't make what Dr. Cox is doing worthless or damaging to people's minds, they come to it because it gives them something they like, and it is certainly connected with science. I think it does a lot more good than harm, and if it could be improved in some way, who among us could escape that criticism? None of this justifies that vitriol, even though there are valid aspects to the points you raise.
Apparently, according to Brian Cox, your mistake might not (in some sense) really be a mistake. And anyway Brian Walsh is a lot closer to any of us than the moon (not that that matters). As atyy and others have pointed out, what Brian Cox said can be considered technically correct. But as Ken G and others have pointed out, it's important how formal QM is translated into ordinary language, because its precise relationship to nature is very much a matter of interpretation.
